/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200911.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, September 11, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 183
Headlines
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Ongoing
ACQ HOLDINGS: Traver Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Utah
ADEN & ANAIS: Faces Angeles Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss Preddy Suit Against ADT LLC Pending
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
ADT INC: Doty Class Suit Against ADT LLC Ongoing
ADT INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Underway in Florida
ADT INC: Settlement Underway in Villegas Suit
ADVANCED MARKETING: Emery Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
AIRBUS SE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Barry Consumer Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
ALPHERA INT'L: Castelluccio Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
ALTERYX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
ALTERYX INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
AMERICAN GOLD: Sosa Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
AMP: Class Action Pending in Australia
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over MacBook Backlighting Issues
ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing
AUSTRALIA: Climate Change Suit Reflects Rising Class Action Trend
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging ERISA Breach
AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Parker Class Suit Underway in Delaware
BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss COVID-19 Suit
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Tomasulo Sues Over Rigging of Metals Futures
BAYER AG: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BAYER AG: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Seeks to Certify Fulltime Employees Class
BLACKROCK FUND: Calif. High Court Won't Review Dismissal Ruling
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Pending
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Ongoing
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Pa. Securities Suit
BRP US: Shaw Seeks to Certify Vehicle Owners Class
CABOT OIL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
CABOT OIL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
CANADA: G20 Protest Class Action v. Toronto Police Settled
CANADIAN SOLAR: Settlement Hrg. in Securities Suit Set for Oct. 30
CARDINAL HEALTH: Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits Pending
CARDINAL HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in LA Sheriffs' Suit
CARILLON TOWER: Ordered to Pay Monetary Sanctions in Dou Class Suit
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Managers Sued Over Breaks for Breast Milk Pumps
CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over ZF 9HP Transmission Problems
CLIVE PALMER: Lawnmowing Man Mulls Class Action Over WA Border
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Salas Securities Suit Denied
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Another Life Insurance Class Action
CONAIR CORP: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Merger Suit Nixed, Awaits for Legal Fee Claims
CONDUENT INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Employees Retirement Suit
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Ongoing
COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood, Fla. Cops Retirement Sys. Pending
CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits Over Anheuser-Busch Merger
CREDIT CONTROL: Lebron Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
CURO GROUP: Seeks Initial Approval of Yellowdog Case Settlement
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Rochester Drug & Mylan Suit Pending
CVS HEALTH: Trial Next Year in Corcoran Class Suit
DENNY'S INC: Court Refuses to Certify FLSA Class Action in Rafferty
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
DL THOMPSON LAW: Derosa Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
DOMINION ENERGY: Accord Resolving Ratepayers' Suit Wins Final OK
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Suit to be Dismissed
DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Pays $32.5 Million
DOMINION ENERGY: Still Defends Consolidated South Carolina Litig.
ELECTROCORE INC: Appeal in Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
ELECTROCORE INC: Turnofsky Putative Class Suit Ongoing
ELKTON, OHIO: 6th Cir. Vacates Prelim. Injunction in Wilson Suit
EPPING GARDENS: Grieving Daughters Join Class Action
ETRADE: Faces Class Action Over Negative U.S. Oil Prices
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stueve Siegel Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit
FASTLY INC: Betancourt Sues Over Decline in Common Stock Value
FIRST FINANCIAL: FDCPA & UCSPA Classes Certified in Lawrence Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Searles Suit v. Capital Bank Financial Ongoing
FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Klein Law Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Barry Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
FLEX LTD: Dec. 3 Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
FLINT, MI: Settles Tainted Water Class Action for $600 Million
FMC CORPORATION: Bisser Class Suit Dismissed
FMC CORPORATION: Livent Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Pending
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Faces Katt ADA Suit in District of Colorado
GENERALI US: Swafford Seeks Refund for Trip Cancelled Over COVID
GENIUS BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
GOOGLE INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Privacy Suit Denied
GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action Ongoing in California
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
HAMILTON BEACH: Stockholder Class Suit Underway in E.D.N.Y.
HAYT & HAYT: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Barenbaum Suit
HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Shiflet Seeks Collective Status
ICONIX BRAND: Approval of SDNY Case Settlement Affirmed
ILLINOIS: Weston Appeals Ruling in Inmates' Suit to 7th Circuit
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Asks Court to Reconsider Denial of Dismissal Bid
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Denied
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Ongoing
INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
J.A VASQUEZ LANDSCAPING: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Retirement Suit Pending
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Class Cert. Opposition Trial Set for Feb. 2021
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Development Emeraude's Suit Underway in Canada
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Bid to Nix SDNY Putative Class Suit Granted
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Class Suit Dismissed
LULAROE: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
MACY'S INC: $192,000 Settlement in Carroll Suit Gets Final Approval
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach
MASTERCORP INC: Camerier Seeks Proper OT Wages for Housekeepers
MED-CARE DIABETIC: Summary Judgment to Silverman in Arwa Affirmed
MERCK & CO: Trial in Suit Over Zetia Sales Rescheduled to 2021
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Schultz FDCPA Suit
MISSOURI: Hep-C Treatment Required Under Class Action Settlement
MOSES CONE: NC Supreme Court Flips Dismissal of Chambers Suit
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Cuppels Suit
MUSKEGON FAMILY: Melton Seeks to Certify WARN Act Class
MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
NEW JERSEY: Female Inmates' Sexual Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
NEW YORK: Governor Gives Commercial Gyms Green Light to Reopen
NEW YORK: Restaurant Owners Mull Class Action Against Mayor
NEXT BIO-RESEARCH: Crescent City Sues Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
NOBLE ENERGY: Curtis Challenges Proposed $5-Bil. Sale to Chevron
NORANDA INCOME: Deal on Sulphur Trioxide Class Suit Gets Approved
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending
NSMG SHARED: $2.2MM Deal in Uschold Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
NUNAVUT: Disputes Allegations in Cloughley Class Action
NXIVM: Keith Raniere Defends Defendant in Class Action Civil Suit
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Hall Sues Over Retention of Surplus Equity
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: EasyPark Card Suit Ongoing
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in N.J.
PARAGON COIN: Faces Securities Class Action Over ICO
PEEK A BOO USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
PETER NYGARD: Judge Okays Request to Suspend Sex Crimes Lawsuit
PROPHASE LABS: TCPA Class Suit Against TK Supplements Ongoing
PROSHARES ULTRA: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Pappas TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
QUTOUTIAO INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending.
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Delayed
REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal to Revive Securities Class Suit Pending
RIPPLE LABS: Simmons Case Consolidated with Sostack Class Action
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal on Securities Case Dismissal Underway
SEMPRA ENERGY: June Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Postponed
SONIM TECH: Settlement Reached in IPO Suit in N.D. Calif.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Court Denies Bid to Change Venue in Rindahl Suit
ST BASIL'S: Sued for Breaching Duty of Care Amid Covid Crisis
STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
STATE FARM: Court Approves Plan of Class Notice in Bally Suit
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Action
SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Underway
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit by ERS Hawaii Underway
TEMPLE PLAZA: FLSA Collective Status Sought
TESCO CORP: 5th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
TESLA INC: Fails to Pay Earned & Unused PTO Wages, Davis Alleges
TEVA PHARMA: Lidoderm (R) Related Suit in Mississippi Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
TEVA PHARMA: Suit Over Drug Pricing Strategies in Discovery
TIGER BRANDS: Class Action Lawyers Seek Food Safety Info
TOYOTA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Pumps
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over "Unreasonable" Admin Fees
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Students Recall Experience
TYSON FOODS: Thornton Appeals Order and Judgment to 10th Circuit
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Giannini FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
US XPRESS: Appeal in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit Pending
US XPRESS: Continues to Defend Independent Contractor Suit
US XPRESS: Facing Independent Contractor Suit in Tenn.
US XPRESS: IPO Related Class Action Suits Ongoing
US XPRESS: Putative Class Suit Over Phishing Attack Underway
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Class Suit Over January 2020 IPO Underway
VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
VENUS CONCEPT: Pak Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Case
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Suit Underway in E.D. Pa.
VIA TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zettlemoyer Says
VIAGOGO: Sued for Denying Consumer Refunds
VIVINT SOLAR: San Diego Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
VIVINT SOLAR: Stockholders Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y.
VIVINT SOLAR: Suit Over Power Purchase Agreements Ongoing
VIVINT SOLAR: TCPA Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
WALMART INC: Hunt Sues in California Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WAYFAIR INC: Massachusetts Putative Class Action Dismissed
WELBILT INC: Appeal From Schlimm Case Ruling Dropped
WEST LOT: Katt Sues in Colorado Over Disabilities Act Violation
WESTSIDE PREPARATORY: Faces Class Action Over Unreturned Deposits
WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits
WINS FINANCE: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Schulze Putative Class Suit Dismissed
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Altman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,254 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Units Still Defend Suits at June 27
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Lifts Stay in D/C Bankruptcy Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 177 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes Hannover Re's Legacy Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $208.6MM Loss Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Suits at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Ongoing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at July 3
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchesters File Exposure Claims vs. Lumara Health
*********
1LIFE HEALTHCARE: Continues to Defend Suit Over Membership Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
1Life Healthcare, 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 related to its collection of Annual Membership Fee.
In May 2018, a class action complaint was filed by two former
members against the Company in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Francisco, or the Court, alleging that the
Company made certain misrepresentations resulting in them paying
the Annual Membership Fee, or AMF in violation of California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False Advertising Law
and California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.
In September 2018, the Company filed a motion to compel the
plaintiffs to individually arbitrate their claims, which motion was
granted as to one plaintiff and denied as to the other. The Company
is appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration and
filed its appellate brief in November 2019.
Appellate proceedings are delayed due to COVID-related court
shutdowns.
An arbitrator conducted arbitration between the Company and the
plaintiff ordered to arbitration, and in June 2020, issued a
decision that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable against
the plaintiff. The Company filed its challenge to the arbitrator's
decision in August 2020.
1Life said, "In light of, among other things, the early stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to make an estimate of the
amount or range of loss, if any, that could result from an
unfavorable outcome. Legal fees, net of amounts recoverable from
the Company's insurance provider, have been recorded as general and
administrative expenses in the condensed consolidated statements of
operations. Additional attorney's fees in excess of those covered
will be expensed as incurred.
1Life Healthcare, Inc. provides software. The Company offers
healthcare application for billing, insurance, planning, and other
related services. 1Life Healthcare serves customers inn the United
States. The company is based in San Francisco, California.
ACER THERAPEUTICS: Skiadas Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Acer 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 company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et
al.
On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action
lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al, No.
1:19-cv-06137GHW, against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry
Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by allegedly making material false and misleading statements
regarding the likelihood of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval for the EDSIVOTM NDA.
With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the case is now captioned
Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics Inc. et al. The Lead Plaintiff filed a
Second Amended Complaint on February 28, 2020 and the Company moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on May 1, 2020.
On June 16, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
Company's motion to dismiss. The Company filed its answer to the
Second Amended Complaint on August 7, 2020, and the Court has
scheduled an initial conference on August 17, 2020.
The Company has not recorded a liability as of June 30, 2020
because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable
given the preliminary nature of the proceedings.
Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the
acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for
serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet
medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts.
ACQ HOLDINGS: Traver Files Breach of Contract Suit in D. Utah
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACQ Holdings, et al.
The case is styled as Kevin M. Traver, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. ACQ Holdings, doing business
as: Easy Cash ASAP, Kansas limited liability company; Easy Cash
ASAP, Kansas Limited Liability Company; Case No. 2:20-cv-00608-DAO
(D. Utah, Aug. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
ACQ Holdings, LLC, is a state licensed company in the consumer
lending industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Jay Watton, Esq.
WATTON LAW GROUP
301 W. Wisconsin Ave., 5th Fl.
Milwaukee, WI 53203
Phone: (414) 273-6858
Email: wlgslc@wattongroup.com
ADEN & ANAIS: Faces Angeles Suit Over Disabilities Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aden & Anais, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Aden & Anais, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07082 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aden & Anais, Inc., produces provides muslin fabric products for
babies and toddlers. The Company designs and markets muslin cotton
blankets and sleeping products, crib sheets, changing pad covers,
towel sets, and swaddles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss Preddy Suit Against ADT LLC Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
ADT 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 class action suit
entitled, Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC, remains pending.
In June 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Alexia Preddy v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The plaintiff asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated as individuals residing in homes of
Company customers, and seeks to recover damages for negligence,
intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
The Company moved to dismiss the complaint and further to compel
arbitration.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. 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 initiated by
Teddy Archer against Defender Holdings, Inc.
In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders Holdings, Inc.,
which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and
seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), breach of contract under state
law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.
During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid
wages.
The parties are actively engaged in discovery.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Doty Class Suit Against ADT LLC Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020,
that ADT LLC continues to defend a class action suit entitled,
Shana Doty v. ADT LLC.
In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff
asserts causes of action on behalf of herself and other Company
customers similarly situated, and seeks to recover damages for
breach of contract, negligence, intrusion upon seclusion, violation
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, negligent hiring, supervision
and retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
After the Company moved to dismiss, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint in July 2020 to add the former technician as a defendant,
to allege additional claims against the Company, and to assert
representation of a new subclass.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Settlement in Shareholders' Suit Underway in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020,
that parties in the consolidated suit entitled, In re ADT Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, are documenting the settlement in
principle, after which the parties plan to move in state court for
certification of a class for settlement purposes and approval of
the settlement.
Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the initial public offering (IPO) in January 2018 were
filed in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and
were consolidated for discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT
Inc. Shareholder Litigation.
The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf
of a putative class of shareholder plaintiffs and sought to
represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the
"Securities Act").
The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the IPO were false and misleading in that they
allegedly misled investors with respect to litigation involving the
Company, the Company's efforts to protect its intellectual
property, and the competitive pressures faced by the Company.
A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May
2018.
In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the state court and the federal court actions. In
connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo action
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in October 2019.
The parties are documenting the settlement in principle, after
which the parties plan to move in state court for certification of
a class for settlement purposes and approval of the settlement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Settlement Underway in Villegas Suit
---------------------------------------------
ADT 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 settlement in Villegas v. ADT is being documented, after
which the parties plan to move for settlement approval and
certification of a class for settlement purposes.
In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.
In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated
certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation. The case was initially dismissed by the trial
court and judgment was entered in the Company's favor in October
2014, which the plaintiff appealed.
In September 2016, the California Appellate Court reversed and
remanded the case back to the trial court. In November 2018, the
trial court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification
and certified four subclasses of customers who received fines from
the City of Los Angeles.
The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in January
2020.
The settlement is being documented, after which the parties plan to
move for settlement approval and certification of a class for
settlement purposes.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADVANCED MARKETING: Emery Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHAYNE EMERY v. ADVANCED MARKETING & PROCESSING, INC. d/b/a PROTECT
MY CAR, Case No. 3:20-cv-03226-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2020),
is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant in
negligently contacting the Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and related
regulations, thereby, invading his privacy.
According to the complaint, in January 2017, the Defendant began
placing unsolicited telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone. The Plaintiff did not provide his prior express
invitation or permission to the Defendant to place these
solicitation telemarketing calls to his cellular telephone.
The Defendant's unsolicited telemarketing calls to the Plaintiff
constitute solicitation calls to promote or sell its products or
services. The Plaintiff received at least nine such unsolicited
telemarketing calls from the Defendant between January and March of
2017, the complaint says.
Advanced Marketing & Processing, Inc., doing business as Protect My
Car, is part of the property/casualty insurance carriers
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Levin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 103
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (224) 218-0882
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: dlevin@toddflaw.com
AIRBUS SE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 5 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Airbus
SE. Investors have until the deadlines listed below to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Airbus SE (OTC: EADSY, EADSF)
Class Period: February 24, 2016 – July 30, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 5, 2020
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Airbus made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Airbus's policies and protocols were insufficient to ensure the
Company's compliance with relevant anti-corruption laws and
regulations; (2) that, consequently, Airbus engaged in bribery,
corruption, and fraud in order to enhance its business with respect
to its commercial aircraft, helicopter, and defense deals; (3)
that, as a result, Airbus's earnings were derived in part from
unlawful conduct and therefore unsustainable; (4) the full scope
and severity of Airbus's misconduct; (5) that resolution of
government investigations of Airbus would foreseeably cost Airbus
billions of dollars in settlements and legal fees and subject the
Company to significant continuing government investigation and
oversight; and (6) that, as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
ALJ REGIONAL: Discovery Ongoing in Marshall Suit vs. Faneuil
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional 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 limited discovery is ongoing in the class
action suit filed against Faneuil, Inc. by Donna Marshall.
On July 31, 2017, plaintiff Donna Marshall filed a proposed class
action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Sacramento against Faneuil, Inc. and ALJ. Marshall, a
previously terminated Faneuil employee, alleges various California
state law employment-related claims against Faneuil.
Faneuil has answered the complaint and removed the matter to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California; however, Marshall filed a motion to remand the case
back to state court, which has been granted.
In connection with the above, an amended complaint was filed by
certain plaintiffs to add a claim for penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act (the "PAGA Claim").
Faneuil demurred to the PAGA Claim and it was eventually dismissed
by the trial court.
The parties are currently engaged in limited discovery.
A court-ordered mediation is scheduled between the parties for
November 2020.
ALJ said, "Faneuil believes this action is without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously. The Company has not accrued
any amounts related to the Marshall claim as of June 30, 2020."
ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. provides call center, back-office,
staffing, and toll collection services to government and commercial
clients in the healthcare, utility, consumer goods, toll, and
transportation industries in the United States. It operates through
three segments: Faneuil, Carpets, and Phoenix. The company was
formerly known as YouthStream Media Networks, Inc. and changed its
name to ALJ Regional Holdings, Inc. in October 2006. ALJ Regional
Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New
York.
ALLY FINANCIAL: Faces Barry Consumer Class Suit in E.D. Michigan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ally Financial, Inc.
The case is styled as Christine M. Barry, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ally Financial, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-12378-PDB-RSW (E.D. Mich., Aug. 31, 2020).
The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit.
Ally Financial is a bank holding company that provides financial
services including car finance, online banking via a direct bank,
corporate lending, vehicle insurance, mortgage loans, and an
electronic trading platform to trade financial assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8180
Fax: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
ALPHERA INT'L: Castelluccio Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
PIERO CASTELLUCCIO v. ALPHERA INTERNATIONAL N.A., LLC, FAWAD AWAN,
VAL DOE, and any other related persons or entities, Case No.
2:20-cv-04050-PKC-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020), is brought on
behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seeking
to recover unpaid wages, including overtime pay, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff's claims under the FLSA are brought as a collective
action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, who were/are employed by the Defendants as
porters and/or other similar positions, who were/are not paid
overtime at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 44 hours per workweek for the
period of three years prior to the date of the filing of this
complaint to the date of the final disposition of this action.
The Plaintiff's claims under the NYLL are brought as a class action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all other similarly
situated porters and/or in similar positions, who seek to recover
for: (1) unpaid overtime pay, which Defendants failed to pay in
violation of the NYLL; (2) failure to pay proper wages for all
hours worked; (3) failure to pay spread of hours compensation; (4)
failure to provide accurate wage notices upon hiring and upon each
change of pay as required by the NYLL, Section 195; and (5) failure
to provide accurate and complete wage statements with each payment
as required by the NYLL, Section 195.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a porter, who
washed, cleaned and delivered cars from January 2019 to May 30,
2020.
Alphera International N.A. LLC is a New York-based company, which
engages in the business of car dealerships.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul A. Bartels, Esq.
BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
100 Quentin Roosevelt Boulevard, Suite 208
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 280-3008
Facsimile: (212) 656-1845
E-mail: lr@belllg.com
ALTERYX INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Aug. 20 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California captioned Smith v.
Alteryx, Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-01540) on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Alteryx, Inc.
("Alteryx" or the "Company") (NYSE: AYX) securities between May 6,
2020 and August 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Alteryx investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/alteryx-inc/. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On August 6, 2020, the Company announced in a press release its
second quarter 2020 financial results, and disappointing growth
projections for the third quarter and full year 2020. Therein,
Alteryx stated that, for the third quarter, it expected revenue "to
be in the range of $111.0 million to $115.0 million, an increase of
7% to 11% year-over-year." Moreover, for fiscal year 2020, the
Company expected revenue "to be in the range of $460.0 million to
$465.0 million, an increase of 10% to 11% year-over-year."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $47.62, or over 28%,
to close at $121.38 per share on August 7, 2020, thereby injuring
investors. The stock price continued to decline over the next
trading session by $12.15, or 10%, to close at $109.23 per share on
August 10, 2020, representing a cumulative decline of $59.77, or
35%.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the Company was unable to close large deals
within the quarter and deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters
or downsized; (2) that, as a result, Alteryx increasingly relied on
adoption licenses to attract new customers; (3) that, as a result
and due to the nature of adoption licenses, the Company's revenue
was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Alteryx securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this
notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
ALTERYX INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 23 announced that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Alteryx Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods listed
below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.
Alteryx, Inc. (NYSE:AYX)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT AYX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/alteryx-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8757&from=1
Class Period: May 6, 2020 - August 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
the Company was unable to close large deals within the quarter, and
deals were pushed out to subsequent quarters or downsized; (2) as a
result, Alteryx increasingly relied on adoption licenses to attract
new customers; (3) as a result and due to the nature of adoption
licenses, the Company's revenue was reasonably likely to decline;
and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: Rosen Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 22
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of American Electric Power Company,
Inc. (NYSE: AEP) between November 2, 2016 and July 24, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for AEP investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the AEP class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company covertly participated in the "the largest
public corruption case in Ohio history"; (2) the Company secretly
funneled substantial funds to Ohio political organizations and
politicians to bribe politicians to pass Ohio House Bill 6, which
benefitted the Company and its coal-fired generation assets; (3)
the Company partially funded a massive, misleading advertising
campaign in support of HB6 and in opposition to a ballot initiative
to repeal HB6 by passing substantial sums through a web of dark
money entities and front companies in order to conceal the
Company's involvement; (4) the Company aided in subverting a
citizens' ballot initiative to repeal HB6; (5) as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' Class Period statements regarding the
Company's regulatory and legislative efforts were materially false
and misleading; (6) as a result of the foregoing, the Company would
face increased scrutiny; (7) the Company was subject to undisclosed
risk of reputational, legal and financial harm; (8) the bribery
scheme would jeopardize the benefits the Company sought by HB6; (9)
as opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding a
move to clean energy, it sought a dirty energy bailout; (10) as
opposed to the Company's repeated public statements regarding
protection of its customers' interests, the Company sought an extra
and state-mandated surcharge on its customers' bills; and (11) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1913.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
AMERICAN GOLD: Sosa Files Suit in S.D.N.Y. Alleging ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Gold
Exchange, Inc. The case is styled as Yony Sosa, On Behalf of
Himself and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. American Gold
Exchange, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-07086 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
American Gold Exchange is a national precious metals and rare coin
company specializing in dealer-to-dealer trading and direct sales
to the public.[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
AMP: Class Action Pending in Australia
--------------------------------------
Aleks Vickovich, writing for Financial Review, reports that labor
is lobbying with renewed vigour for a parliamentary inquiry into
AMP's culture, after the departure of chairman David Murray amid
public backlash to the wealth manager's handling of sexual
harassment allegations.
NSW senator Deborah O'Neill said the announcement of Mr Murray's
departure, along with the demotion of AMP Capital chief Boe Pahari,
would put wind in the sails of her efforts to have the parliament
investigate AMP's alleged cultural and governance failures as a
"case study".
Mr. Murray led the Abbott government's 2014 Financial System
Inquiry, which Ms O'Neill said had failed to identify systemic
misconduct.
She also noted that as chief executive of Commonwealth Bank, Mr
Murray was a pioneer of the "vertical integration" wealth
management business model criticised by the Hayne royal
commission.
"Mr. Murray's legacy is that he advantaged himself and
disadvantaged far too many others," she told The Australian
Financial Review. "A lot of people have paid for his personal
indulgence of a particular world view."
She will put a formal request to the parliamentary joint committee
on corporations and financial services on Aug. 20 for an inquiry
into AMP's conduct, which will call aggrieved employees, suppliers
and complainants as witnesses.
The planned inquiry, which she said had the backing of
parliamentary Labor colleagues, was initially inspired by the
"plight of financial planners" under AMP's control.
Many current and former members of AMP's network of financial
advisers suffered financial loss and mental anguish as a result of
the company's decisions to slash the value of financial planning
client books under its long-standing and controversial "Buyer of
Last Resort" policy and switch off conflicted remuneration owed to
planners before legally required.
AMP's renegotiation of the contract terms is now the subject of a
class action lawsuit filed in the Federal Court of Australia by law
firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth in July.
However, Ms. O'Neill sought to expand the terms of reference of the
slated inquiry to look more broadly at allegations of sexual
harassment and bullying revealed by the Financial Review.
That investigation found that Mr Pahari was promoted to lead its
$192 billion funds management division despite copping a $500,000
penalty after the company settled a sexual harassment claim brought
by a female subordinate in 2017.
The whistleblower at the centre of the allegations against Mr
Pahari, former AMP Capital employee Julia Szlakowski, criticised
the company's response to the revelations and on Aug. 21, AMP
refused to provide her with unrestricted access to an independent
report on the matter.
Senator O'Neill said that decision not to provide unrestricted
access was a form of "intimidation" of Ms Szlakowski and confirmed
the board was "out of touch" with broader public expectations.
"Pahari has stepped aside, he has not been removed. Why is it that
Mr Pahari, who was fined half a million dollars, is still there and
Ms Szlakowski is not there? That has not been resolved," she said.
"In recent days, she has been subject to another form of abuse in
the form of intimidation by AMP. They expect her to accept a
private reading of the papers that are about her, in order that
they might release them publicly. That does not augur well for
cultural change."
Neil Macdonald, chief executive of AMP's financial adviser
representative body, said: "We are looking forward to discussing
the future of advice with the new chair".
It is unclear whether the proposed inquiry would be supported by
Coalition members of the committee.
Chief government whip Bert van Manen, who was a financial adviser
before entering politics, initially expressed support for an
inquiry, telling the ABC that AMP's treatment of its advisers was
"disgraceful".
However, he subsequently walked back his comments, telling the
Financial Review the dispute between AMP and its advisers was a
commercial matter best left to the courts.
"Mr. Van Manen's remarks were frank and heartening when I first
raised the issue with him; I remain hopeful of his support," Ms
O'Neill said.
"I'd be really disappointed if the government did not support this.
We'll see if they can read the tea leaves of the times." [GN]
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over MacBook Backlighting Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Warwick, writing for iMore, reports that a new class-action
lawsuit alleges that Apple was aware of a design issue within the
MacBook Pro which caused backlighting issues.
According to AppleInsider:
A class-action complaint lodged on Aug. 19 claims Apple was aware
of a MacBook Pro design flaw that caused some units to exhibit
backlight display issues.
Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, the action targets the so-called "stage light" or
"flexgate" issue that presented in MacBook Pro models manufactured
in 2016 and 2017.
The suit, filed on Aug. 19, allegedly refers to a problem
discovered in 2018 which showed up as "dark patches that run across
the bottom" of a problematic display. It was soon discovered that
the problem was linked to a flex cable connecting the display to
the logic board. A repair program was launched to fix the issue,
but only in Apple's 2016 13-inch Macbook Pro. It seems that Apple
failed to cover both the 15-inch MacBook and models after 2016
which were also identified as problematic.
Repair costs prior to the program, and for those whose models were
not covered by it, were very expensive because it usually meant
replacing the entire display.
The suit seeks that Apple is ordered to identify "all defective
Macbook Pro laptops", listing them on its website and removing them
from the stream of commerce, as well as an award of damages to the
class members of the suit. [GN]
ARK RESTAURANTS: Former Tipped Workers' Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
Ark Restaurants Corp. 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 class action
suit initiated by two former tipped service workers.
On May 1, 2018, two former tipped service workers, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated personnel, filed a
putative class action lawsuit against the Company and certain
subsidiaries as well as certain officers of the Company.
Plaintiffs allege on behalf of themselves and the putative class,
that the Company violated certain of the New York State Labor Laws
and related regulations.
The Complaint seeks unspecified money damages, together with
interest, liquidated damages and attorney fees.
There has been no discovery on the merits of the Complaint and the
matter is still in the initial stages of discovery concerning
whether the named Plaintiffs are seeking to represent an
appropriate class of tipped service workers and if so, whether the
named Plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives.
The Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint was denied on June
27, 2019.
The Company believes that the allegations and claims in the
Complaint are without merit, and it intends to defend itself
vigorously in this litigation.
Ark Restaurants said, "However, the outcomes of legal actions are
unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties, and thus it
is inherently difficult to determine the probability or
quantification of any loss. Based on information currently
available, including the Company's assessment of the facts
underlying the Complaint and advice of counsel, the Company
recorded an accrual for this matter and related expenses as of June
27, 2020."
Ark Restaurants Corp. owns and operates 20 restaurants and bars, 19
fast food concepts and catering operations in the U.S. The New
York-based Company's portfolio of brands includes Shuckers, The
Rustic Inn, and Southwest Porch.
AUSTRALIA: Climate Change Suit Reflects Rising Class Action Trend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that a class action filed against the
Federal Government for failing to disclose climate change risks
attached to sovereign bonds reflects trends that could see rising
actions against companies, legal firm Allens warns.
Directors' and officers' (D&O) insurance premiums are continuing to
soar as class actions target listed companies over disclosure
breaches, raising concerns over trends that could further increase
risks.
The action against the Government was filed in the Victorian
Federal Court late last month by a 23-year-old student on her own
behalf and as a representative of retail investors and bond
holders.
"Australia is becoming front and centre as a forum for activist
climate change litigation against corporates, financial
institutions and government," Allens says in a note on Aug. 10.
"This case is a stepping stone towards more commercially focussed
climate change disclosure class actions against corporations."
The action filed in the Federal Court is the first worldwide to
relate to climate change risk in the sovereign bond market.
It targets individual public office holders in relation to duties
that are similar to directors' roles, and Allens says in that
regard it might serve as a caution for members of publicly listed
boards.
Global broker Marsh says in a report this month that commercial
insurance rates in the Pacific region surged 31% in the second
quarter, fuelled in part by a further deterioration in Australia's
D&O market.
Among business lines, financial and professional liability led the
way with a record 48% rise in prices, as insurers continued to
withdraw from the D&O market over heightened fears of more class
action claims in the future.
Allens says the claim against the Government faces some significant
hurdles and does not seek compensation, but the proceedings and
others like it should not be dismissed as insignificant.
"In light of the increasing focus on risks presented by climate
change, governance and systems are likely to come under scrutiny,
particularly in the event a climate change-related risk
crystallises," it says. [GN]
AUTOMATIC DATA: Faces 2 Class Suits Alleging ERISA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2020, that the company is a defendant in two
purported class action suit related to its alleged violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
In May 2020, two potential class action complaints were filed
against ADP, TotalSource and related defendants in the U.S.
District Court, District of New Jersey.
The complaints assert violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in connection with the ADP
TotalSource Retirement Savings Plan’s fiduciary administrative
and investment decision-making.
The complaints seek statutory and other unspecified monetary
damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
Automatic Data said, "These claims are still in their earliest
stages and the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably
possible loss, or range of loss, with respect to these matters. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits."
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.
AUTOMATIC DATA: Settlement Reached in Biometric Data Use Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2020, that the Company has reached a
settlement in the potential class action complaint related to the
company's violation of the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act.
In June 2018, a potential class action complaint was filed against
the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois asserting
that ADP violated the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act in connection
with its collection, use and storage of biometric data of employees
of its clients who are residents of Illinois.
In addition, similar potential class action complaints have been
filed in Illinois state courts against ADP and/or certain of its
clients with respect to the collection, use and storage of
biometric data of the employees of these clients.
In June 2020, the Company reached a settlement of all outstanding
claims against ADP for $25.0 million, subject to the court's
preliminary approval.
The Company does not expect that any of the remaining cases against
ADP's clients will result in any material liabilities to the
Company.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. provides business process
outsourcing services worldwide. It operates through two segments,
Employer Services and Professional Employer Organization (PEO)
Services. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in
Roseland, New Jersey.
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Parker Class Suit Underway in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, 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
derivative and class action complaint entitled, Parker v. Avril, et
al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.
On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder filed a derivative
and class action complaint against certain of the Company's
directors (current and former), executives and significant
stockholders (“Defendants”) and the Company (as a nominal
defendant).
The action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and is
captioned Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not
properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the
2019 rights offering and related transactions.
The Company is evaluating Plaintiff's claims and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.
Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13,
2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power
generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of
boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in
three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is
based in Barberton, Ohio.
BAIDU INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 23 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Baidu Inc.
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.
Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIDU)
BIDU Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 8, 2016 -
August 13, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/baidu-inc-information-request-form-2?prid=8755&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Baidu,
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and
business condition of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and
(3) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially
false and/or misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky 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]
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 19
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers and those who otherwise acquired the securities of
Baidu, Inc. between April 8, 2016 and August 13, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Baidu investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Baidu class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1925.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Baidu misrepresented the financial and business condition
of iQIYI; (2) iQIYI had inadequate controls; and (3) as a result,
defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these
true details were disclosed by a market research firm.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October
19, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1925.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss COVID-19 Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Slabaugh, writing for Muncie Star Press, reports that a judge
has denied Ball State University's motion to dismiss a lawsuit
brought on behalf of a student seeking reimbursement for tuition
and fees after the campus was shut down because of COVID-19 last
spring.
As of July 1, more than 150 similar, proposed class-action lawsuits
had been filed against colleges and universities, including Indiana
and Purdue universities, alleging breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and other complaints.
"In its mind," attorney Eric Pavlack says he told the judge, "Ball
State gets off the hook because it's a university. They think they
have special rules because they're a university, and they're just
wrong about that."
While Ball State classes continued online for the remaining 47 days
of spring semester, students did not pay for "classes" or an
"education," Pavlack wrote in the lawsuit. "They specifically paid
for 'in-person' education … This case is not a challenge to the
quality of the education provided. Instead, it is about the
university promising one thing and delivering another. That
constitutes breach."
In asking for the case to be thrown out, Ball State noted that it
implemented virtual learning on March 16, following orders and
guidance from local, state and federal government officials.
This included an executive order from Gov. Eric Holcomb to
"facilitate distance learning" to "ensure that the maximum number
of people self-isolate in their homes or residences to the maximum
extent feasible, while also enabling essential services to
continue, in order to slow the spread of COVID-19 to the greatest
extent possible."
By continuing to operate virtually, Ball State, which was deemed an
essential service, "ensured that students obtained the educational
experience for which they paid: completion of and credit for their
Spring 2020 courses to permit them to either graduate or stay on
track to graduate," the university's attorneys said in the motion
to dismiss.
After conducting a hearing on the motion, Special Judge Matthew C.
Kincaid, of Boone Superior Court 1, denied it, without
explanation.
BSU, which does not comment on pending litigation, is being
defended by Paul A. Wolfla, Jane Dall Wilson, Amanda L. Shelby, and
Sarah V. Bowers, of Faegre Drinker Biddle Reath (formerly Baker &
Daniels), a firm with more than 1,300 attorneys in 22 locations.
"While it may be too late for spring term 2020, institutions should
review and evaluate published institutional refund policies,
enrollment agreements, room and board agreements, and similar
documents to ensure that contractual terms and policies reflect the
current needs of the institution," Wilson and other Faegre Drinker
lawyers advised schools in April with respect to COVID.
It appears that Ball State is heeding that advice.
In one of its COVID-19 "frequently asked questions" sections on its
website, BSU, which plans to end the on-campus learning phase of
this fall's semester by Thanksgiving, says:
"While the on-campus portion of the semester will be shorter than
in previous years, the University is committed to making it a
complete learning opportunity. The fee rates, which were approved
for the 2020-2021 school year in 2019, allow us to not only provide
services to students today, but ensure the infrastructure is
available for generations of Ball State students to come, and they
are not being altered at this time. Tuition and fees will not be
refunded in the event instruction occurs remotely for any part of
the Academic Year even if courses were planned to be delivered on
campus and in-person."
Because the change in the on-campus fall schedule was known well in
advance, the university's housing office reduced the fall semester
charge to reflect closing the residence halls over Thanksgiving
break," thus no credit will be required.
While a significant number of colleges and universities provided
pro-rated refunds to students for unused housing or meal plans
after shutting down in spring semester, "institutions have
generally declined to return or reduce tuition and other fees
because students (were) still receiving the curriculum and
instruction that their tuition paid for, albeit in a different
format," according to Faegre Drinker.
Two class actions lawsuits brought by students against Duke
University were dismissed this summer after North Carolina Gov. Roy
Cooper signed a law that provides immunity to N.C. institutions of
higher education that shifted their in-person classes online from
legal claims to recover spring 2020 tuition, fees or room and board
expenses.
While some of the lawsuits seeking recovery of tuition and fees
were filed by "John Does," the case against BSU was brought by
Keller Mellowitz, who last school year was a junior from Marion
County whose undergraduate focus is legal studies.
In addition to tuition, Ball State students pay numerous fees,
including health center, transportation (shuttle buses),
recreation, student center, Emens Auditorium, Late Nite on-campus
events on Saturdays, and intercollegiate athletic competitions like
football games, basketball games and volleyball matches.
Ball State stopped providing those services when it shut down the
campus, and in so doing may have been unjustly enriched, Pavlack
complained in an interview.
"We will find that they probably saved a lot of money on things
like not operating the recreation center or the health center and
maintenance on those buses," he said. "But they didn't share those
savings with students when they stopped providing those services.
They want to keep all the money."
In the lawsuit, Pavlack wrote, "Ultimately, and after the benefit
of discovery, a jury should decide whether Ball State followed
through on what it promised, i.e. did the students get what they
paid for?"
In response, Ball State's attorneys wrote:
"Despite framing his first claim as one sounding in contract, it,
in fact, alleges tort claim
for educational malpractice, which Indiana does not recognize. At
any rate, the Complaint does not adequately allege that Ball State
breached any contractual obligations.
"Plaintiff's second claim for unjust enrichment, pled in the
alternative, should be dismissed because it is wholly duplicative
of his contract claim. Even if the law did not dictate dismissal
for that reason (and it does), the Court should dismiss the unjust
enrichment claim because Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead that
the University's retention of the fees paid was 'unjust' based on
the shift to remote instruction for 47 days."
Indiana University has accused lawyers of taking advantage of the
coronavirus crisis.
"In the midst of a global pandemic that has wreaked havoc on our
entire way of life, Indiana University has acted responsibly to
keep our students safe and progressing in their education," Chuck
Carney, a spokesperson at IU, was quoted as saying. "We are deeply
disappointed that this lawsuit fails to recognize the extraordinary
efforts of our faculty, staff, and students under these conditions
while it seeks to take advantage in this time of state and national
emergency." [GN]
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Tomasulo Sues Over Rigging of Metals Futures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFERY TOMASULO and CHRISTOPHER DEPAOLI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
COREY FLAUM, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Case No. 3:20-cv-12111 (D.N.J.,
Aug. 31, 2020), is brought under the Commodity Exchange Act for the
Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of precious
metals futures contracts.
According to the complaint, the Defendants engaged in fraudulent
and manipulative trading practices between at least January 2008
and until at least July 2016 in connection with the purchase and
sale of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium futures contracts
traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange ("NYMEX") and the
Commodity Exchange, Inc. ("COMEX") in violation of the CEA and the
common law.
The Defendants engaged in a long running illicit scheme to "spoof'
the market for futures contracts--contracts to enter into a future
transaction at a predetermined price, according to the complaint.
The Defendants placed legitimate buy and sell orders, and would
then place manipulative orders to artificially drive the price in a
favorable direction for the Defendants. After the legitimate order
was executed, the Defendants would cancel the manipulative orders
before the manipulative orders could be executed. Accordingly, the
spoof orders were designed to, and did, artificially move the
prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts during the Class Period in a direction that was favorable
to the Defendants, but unfavorable to the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants' deliberate acts distorted price signals and
manipulated the prices of NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures
and options contracts during the class period, the Plaintiffs
contend. They add that the Defendants' actions were intended to,
and did, induce other market participants, such as the Plaintiffs,
to trade against the Defendants' genuine orders. The manipulative
strategy injured the Plaintiffs and the Class by causing them to
transact in NYMEX and COMEX precious metals futures and options
contracts at artificial prices and, thereby, suffer monetary
losses.
The Bank of Nova Scotia is a banking corporation headquartered in
West Toronto, Ontario.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com
LTaylor@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
BAYER AG: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-cabot-oil-amp-gas-corporation-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
BAYER AG: Klein Law Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 23 announced that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Bayer AG.
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.
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
The complaint alleges Bayer Aktiengesellschaft made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
1) following its acquisition of Monsanto Company, Bayer could be at
risk of suffering billions of dollars in judgments and reputational
damage if the lawsuits brought against Monsanto alleging that
exposure to its glyphosate-based Roundup product caused cancer were
successful, 2) a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
prospects of the Monsanto acquisition and the benefits it would
create for Bayer's business were materially false and/or misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Learn about your recoverable losses in BAYRY:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/bayer-aktiengesellschaft-loss-submission-form?id=8760&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.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
BAYOU STEEL: Fleming Seeks to Certify Fulltime Employees Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as TROY FLEMING, JARROD NABOR,
DAVARIAN URSIN, CHARLES ZIEGELER, and RONNIE MILLET, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. BAYOU STEEL BD
HOLDINGS II, L.L.C. and BLACK DIAMOND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case
No. 2:20-cv-01476-CJB-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. certifying a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defined as:
"all former fulltime employees of the Bayou Steel Entities
and the Defendants, who worked at, received assignments
from, or reported to the Bayou Steel Entities' and the
Defendants' Facilities and who (1) were terminated without
cause beginning on or about September 30, 2019, and within
30 days of that date; or were terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoffs
and/or facility closings ordered by the Defendants on or
about September 30, 2019; and (2) are affected employees,
as that term is defined by the Worker Adjustment
Retraining and Notification Act in 29 U.S.C. section
2101(a)(5)";
2. appointing themselves as Class Representatives and their
counsel as Class Counsel; and
3. approving the form and manner of Notice.
Bayou Steel manufactures carbon steel products such as beams,
angles, channels, and round bars.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and Class Members are:
Brent Barriere, Esq.
Jason W. Burge, Esq.
Kathryn J. Johnson, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, L.L.P.
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
E-mail: bbarriere@fishmanhaygood.com
jburge@fishmanhaygood.com
kjohnson@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR & KANE, APLC
818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
St. Louis, MO 63104
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: jpeiffer@pwcklegal.com
bwise@pwcklegal.com
- and -
Eric J. O'Bell, Esq.
Bradley T. Oster, Esq.
O'BELL LAW FIRM, LLC
3500 North Hullen Street
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 456-8677
E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com
brad@obelllawfirm.com
- and -
Hugh P. Lambert, T.A., Esq.
Cayce C. Peterson, Esq.
THE LAMBERT FIRM, PLC
701 Magazine Street
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Telephone: (504) 581-1750
E-mail: hlambert@thelambertfirm.com
cpeterson@thelambertfirm.com
- and -
Randal L. Gaines, Esq.
7 Turnberry Drive
LaPlace, LA 70068
Telephone: (225) 647-3383
E-mail: attyrandal@gmail.com
- and -
Kevin J. Mangan, Esq.
Nicholas T. Verna, Esq.
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
1313 North Market Street, Suite 1200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (312) 252-4320
E-mail: kevin.mangan@wbd-us.com
nick.verna@wbd-us.comc
BLACKROCK FUND: Calif. High Court Won't Review Dismissal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the California Supreme
Court has denied plaintiffs' petition for review in relation to the
dismissal of their claims by the California State court and later
by the California Court of Appeal.
On June 16, 2016, the BlackRock Fund Advisors (Advisor) and certain
principals of the Advisor and the Sponsor were named as defendants
in a purported class action lawsuit filed in California state
court.
The lawsuit was filed by investors in certain iShares ETFs, and
alleges the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
failing to adequately disclose in prospectuses issued by the ETFs
the risks to the ETFs' shareholders in the event of a "flash
crash."
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and rescission damages. The
plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed in December 2016 and on January
6, 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On April 27, 2017, the court partially granted the defendants'
motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing certain of the
plaintiffs' claims. On September 18, 2017, the court issued a
decision dismissing the remainder of the lawsuit after a one-day
bench trial.
On October 11, 2017, the court entered final judgment dismissing
all of plaintiffs' claims with prejudice. In an opinion dated
January 23, 2020, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.
On March 3, 2020, plaintiffs filed a petition for review by the
California Supreme Court. On May 27, 2020, the California Supreme
Court denied plaintiffs' petition for review.
Plaintiffs may choose to petition the U.S. Supreme Court for
further review.
The iShares S&P GSC(TM) Commodity-Indexed Trust (the "Trust") is a
Delaware statutory trust that issues units of beneficial interest
("Shares") representing fractional undivided beneficial interests
in its net assets. The Trust holds long positions in
exchange-traded index futures contracts of various expirations, or
"Index Futures" on the S&P GSCI(TM) Excess Return Index (the :S&P
GSCI-ER"), together with cash, U.S. Treasury securities or other
short-term securities and similar securities that are eligible as
margin deposits for the Trust's Index Futures positions, referred
to as "Collateral Assets." The Index Futures held by the Trust are
listed on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the "CME"). The Trust
seeks to track the results of a fully collateralized investment in
futures contracts on an index composed of a diversified group of
commodities futures. The Trust seeks to track the investment
returns of the S&P GSCI(TM) Total Return Index (the "Index") before
payment of the Trust's expenses and liabilities.
BLOOM ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Roberts Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the class action suit initiated by
Elissa Roberts remains pending.
In May 2019, Roberts filed a class action complaint in the federal
district court for the Northern District of California against the
company, certain members of its senior management team, and certain
of its directors alleging violations under Section 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act for alleged misleading statements or omissions in
the company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC
in connection with its initial public offering (IPO).
On September 3, 2019, James Hunt was appointed as lead plaintiff
and Levi & Korsinsky was appointed as plaintiff's counsel.
On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding
the underwriters in the company's initial public offering, claims
under Sections 10b and 20a of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the Exchange Act") and extending the class period to September 16,
2019.
On April 21, 2020, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
adding claims under the Securities Act.
The second amended complaint also adds allegations pertaining to
the Restatement and, as to claims under the Exchange Act, extends
the class period through February 12, 2020.
Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend. On July 1, 2020, we filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended complaint."
Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.
BLOOM ENERGY: Consolidated Lincolnshire Police Fund Suit Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that the consolidated Lincolnshire Police
Pension Fund class action suit remains stayed.
In March 2019, the Lincolnshire Police Pension Fund filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the company, certain members of its
senior management, certain of its directors and the underwriters in
its initial public offering alleging violations under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act") for alleged misleading statements or omissions in the
company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in
connection with its July 25, 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").
Two related class action cases were subsequently filed in the Santa
Clara County Superior Court against the same defendants containing
the same allegations; Rodriquez vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on
April 22, 2019 and Evans vs Bloom Energy et al. was filed on May 7,
2019. These cases have been consolidated.
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed with the court
on September 12, 2019. On October 4, 2019, defendants moved to stay
the lawsuit pending the federal district court action discussed
below. On December 7, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order
staying the action through resolution of the parallel federal
litigation mentioned below.
Bloom Energy said, "We believe the complaint to be without merit
and we intend to vigorously defend."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.
BLOOM ENERGY: Sanchez Class Suit in Santa Clara County Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bloom Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q/A 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 initiated by Francisco Sanchez.
In March 2020, Francisco Sanchez filed a class action complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court against the company alleging
certain wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and that the company
engaged in unfair business practices under the California Business
and Professions Code, and in July 2020 he amended his complaint to
add claims under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act (PAGA).
Bloom Energy said, "We are still investigating the Plantiff's
allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the complaint,
but any range of potential loss is not currently estimable."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bloom Energy Corporation designs, manufactures, and sells
solid-oxide fuel cell systems for on-site power generation. The
company was formerly known as Ion America Corp. and changed its
name to Bloom Energy Corporation in September 2006. Bloom Energy
Corporation was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in San Jose,
California.
BRIGHTVIEW HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Pa. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brightview 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 parties in the consolidated suit
entitled, In re BrightView Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
have agreed in principle to settle the litigation.
In April 2019, two purported class action complaints, one captioned
McComas v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., and the other captioned
Speiser v. BrightView Holdings, Inc., were filed against the
Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering
(IPO), and the Company's alleged controlling stockholders.
The complaints were consolidated in July 2019 in the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas under the caption In re BrightView
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, with the McComas complaint,
as subsequently amended, as the operative pleading.
Both complaints allege violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants and controlling person claims
under Section 15 of the Act against certain defendants.
The plaintiffs purport to represent similar classes of persons who
purchased BrightView stock in its IPO in July 2018 or purchased
BrightView stock in the market that was traceable to the shares
issued in the IPO. The complaints allege that the IPO prospectus
was misleading because it allegedly failed to disclose that a
portion of BrightView's contracts were underperforming and/or
represented undesirable costs to the Company and that, as a result,
BrightView would implement a managed exit strategy from low margin
or non-profitable contracts that would negatively impact its future
revenues; and that BrightView failed to disclose an alleged labor
shortage caused by the Company's inability to hire sufficient
workers through the H-2B visa program would adversely affect
earnings.
On August 12, 2019, BrightView and the other defendants filed
preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the complaint as
legally insufficient.
Defendants also filed a petition for dismissal based on the
provision in BrightView's certificate of incorporation that
designates the federal district courts of the United States of
America as the exclusive forum for resolving any claim arising
under the United States federal securities laws, or to stay the
action pending the decision of the Delaware Supreme Court in
Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi.
In that case, the Delaware Supreme Court was expected to decide
whether federal forum selection provisions such as the one in
BrightView's certificate of incorporation are enforceable under
Delaware law.
On November 4, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. On November 6, 2019, the Court overruled defendants'
preliminary objections and denied defendants' petition for
dismissal or for a stay, without prejudice to renewal after the
Delaware Supreme Court issued its decision in Salzberg v.
Sciabacucchi. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed answers to
the complaint.
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court rendered its
decision, upholding under Delaware's General Corporate Law the
facial validity of federal-forum selection provisions such as the
one in BrightView's certificate of incorporation.
Following mediation, the parties have agreed in principle to settle
the litigation, subject to execution of a final agreement between
the parties and subsequent Court approval.
The settlement amount is substantially covered by the Company's D&O
liability insurance policies, subject to applicable self-insured
retentions.
The Company and the individual defendants continue to deny the
substantive allegations of the complaints or that they committed
any wrongdoing, and the settlement is without any admission of
liability or wrongdoing.
Brightview Holdings Inc. is a commercial landscaping services
provider. The Company provides commercial landscaping services,
ranging from landscape maintenance and enhancements to tree care
and landscape development. It operates through an integrated
national service prototype, which systematically delivers services
at the local levels. The company is based in Blue Bell,
Pennsylvania.
BRP US: Shaw Seeks to Certify Vehicle Owners Class
--------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY SHAW, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. BRP US, INC.;
BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL PRODUCTS, INC.; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:19-cv-01830-PA-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court for an order on September 14, 2020:
1 . certifying a class of:
all "consumers" within the meaning of California Civil
Code section 1761(d) who purchased a new 2017-2019 Can-Am
Maverick X3 series side-by-side vehicle, including both
two-door and four door models within the State of
California"
2. appointing him as the representative for the Class; and
3. appointing McCune Wright Arevalo LLP as Class Counsel.
The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violation
of the California Consumer Remedies Act, the California's False
Advertising Law, and the California's Unfair Competition Laws.
BRP is a Canadian company making various vehicles.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class are:
David C. Wright, Esq.
Steven A. Haskins, Esq.
Mark I. Richards, Esq.
MCCUNE WRIGHT AREVALO LLP
3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91761
Telephone: (909) 557-1250
Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
E-mail: dcw@mccunewright.com
sah@mccunewright.com
mir@mccunewright.com
CABOT OIL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-cabot-oil-amp-gas-corporation-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
CABOT OIL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Cabot
Oil & Gas Corporation. Investors have until the deadlines listed
below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG)
Class Period: October 23, 2015 – June 12, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Cabot made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or
failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls
and procedures; (2) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed
to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water
supplies through stray gas migration; (3) that the foregoing was
foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental
scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and
financial harm; (4) that Cabot continually downplayed its potential
civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such
environmental matters; and (5) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CANADA: G20 Protest Class Action v. Toronto Police Settled
----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Bronski, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
more than 10 years after the brutal police state suppression of
demonstrators during the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, a settlement
has been reached in a citizens' class-action lawsuit against the
Police Services Board. Lawyers for 1,100 plaintiffs who were
detained and/or arrested during the protests and the Board agreed
on a $16.5 million payout ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 in
compensation for each individual listed in the complaint.
The police attempted to block the complaint in the courts for years
before the Supreme Court of Canada, unable to ignore widespread and
egregious video evidence of police misconduct, ruled in 2016 that
the suit could continue.
The amount awarded to each individual will depend on their
particular experiences at the hands of the police. In addition,
those arrested will have their police records expunged. The police
further publicly acknowledged their malfeasance. The settlement now
awaits formal court approval this October.
The June 2010 police -- state blitz in Toronto was the largest mass
arrest in the history of Canada -- more than during the Great
Winnipeg General Strike of 1919 or the suspension of civil
liberties in Quebec under the War Measures Act during the 1970 FLQ
crisis.
In the week leading up to the G20 summit, downtown Toronto had all
the hallmarks of a city under a state of siege. Six kilometers of
fencing, topped with concertina wire and anchored in concrete
encircled the actual meeting area. Police checkpoints fanned out
another kilometer from the convention location. Snipers were
stationed on the city's high rise rooftops. American Navy Seals
surreptitiously patrolled the harbour.
Citizens in the vicinity were instructed to carry picture
identification and expect curb-side interrogation by any of the
thousands of police officers brought in from across the country.
Canine units waited in the side streets.
Phalanxes of federal, provincial and municipal police stood at
every corner, buttressed by more mobile bicycle and horse patrols.
Identification badges required to be displayed by the police were
often removed. A thousand private security guards were deployed
throughout the city's adjacent financial and entertainment
districts. Seventy-seven new closed-circuit surveillance cameras
monitored all movement on the streets. Police helicopters
constantly hovered overhead. Security Service operatives regularly
swept through the hotels and Canadian Armed Forces soldiers stood
"on the ready" at "undisclosed locations."
The wholesale suppression of democratic rights by the police on the
streets of Toronto -- abetted and supported by all levels of
government -- shocked broad layers of the population. Protesters
were kicked, bludgeoned, tear gassed, trampled by police horses and
shot at with rubber and plastic bullets. Even prior to the
beginning of the demonstrations, homes were raided in the middle of
the night and without warrants being shown in a series of
"preventative arrests." Journalists covering these unprecedented
events were arrested and assaulted. Those apprehended were hauled
into primitive detention cages, strip searched and denied legal
counsel.
Despite the public outcry against the police-state methods, both
then federal Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario
Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty issued statements supporting the
security measures and refused to convene a public inquiry. For
their part, Toronto City's Councillors, led by then
social-democratic Mayor David Miller, voted 36–0 to "commend
outstanding police work."
Sherry Good, an office administrator and resident of a
neighbourhood that saw police, in a driving thunderstorm, kettle
(trap, detain and/or arrest) about 400 bystanders, commuters and
peaceful protesters for four hours, was one of the initiators of
the class-action suit. That particular operation, captured on film,
was viewed by hundreds of thousands of Canadians. "I'm just an
ordinary person," said Good, who was out for a walk in her
neighbourhood when the police action began. "I am not an activist,
but I got caught up in the police kettling operation at Queen
Street and Spadina Avenue. I just feel that what happened to me and
hundreds of others was very wrong. It shocked me that I was
surrounded and held by police because I was just walking on the
street where I live."
Another incident -- one among hundreds—received widespread
coverage. While marching on a police-approved route in downtown
Toronto, environmental activist Natalie Gray was hit by two rubber
bullets fired by a police tactical unit, tackled and bundled into a
police vehicle. She was then driven around the streets of the city
for half an hour before receiving any medical attention for her
injuries. Gray was subsequently incarcerated in a wire cage for 30
hours on a charge of obstructing a police officer. Those charges
were subsequently dropped for lack of evidence when she appeared at
a court hearing.
At the time of Gray's arrest, the police initially denied firing
rubber bullets into the crowd of demonstrators. But their lies were
exposed when bystanders recovered some of the projectiles and Gray
appeared on television to display wounds inflicted by the bullets.
"What happened to me during the G20 weekend -- being shot,
arrested, sexually threatened, strip searched, taunted, and left
cold, hungry, and in pain—is in no way unique," said Gray. "The
police demonstrated utter contempt for democracy and the law. In a
truly democratic country, the politicians and police responsible
for such unprovoked violence would be put on trial. The weekend of
the G20 Summit made blatantly obvious the Harper government's
fascist approach to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. We
need to ask Harper how he justifies the one billion dollar police
budget for the weekend. We need to ask ourselves whether we should
put up with a government that funds and dictates such brutality."
A brief spree of petty vandalism by Black Bloc anarchist
demonstrators was endlessly trundled out by the police to justify
their increasingly brutal actions. However, in subsequent court
proceedings against several anarchists, documents were released as
part of a plea deal that revealed 12 undercover police agents
either led, spied on or infiltrated protest groups. At least two of
these undercover officers played central roles in organizing
protest activities of various anarchist collectives. This included
helping to identify targets to be vandalized.
In the entire course of events only one police officer was
convicted of criminal misconduct after he was filmed brutally
beating Adam Nobody, a peaceful demonstrator. Officer
Andalib-Goortani was found guilty of assault with a weapon in 2013
and was ultimately sentenced to a year of probation and 75 hours of
community service for breaking Nobody's nose and cheekbone. In
addition, police superintendant Mark Fenton, who had described
demonstrators as "terrorists" and who commanded one of the
kettlings of innocent civilians, after much public outcry, was
docked 60 days' pay by a police board.
More than 800 of those arrested were subsequently released without
charge. Of 330 charges laid, most were stayed or dropped
altogether. In the end, only about two dozen individuals were found
guilty of any misconduct whatsoever during the G20 protests.
The fact that such arbitrary use of ruthless state violence could
occur in a major North American city with virtually no consequences
for the perpetrators testifies to the rotten character of democracy
in Canada. This was not the product of a few rogue elements within
the police, but a deliberately planned provocation that enjoyed
support from all levels of the state apparatus aimed at
intimidating activists and working people.
Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have arrogated
vast, almost unlimited powers to the police and national security
apparatus under the guise of the "war on terror." The G-20
repression confirmed the World Socialist Web Site's repeated
warnings that the real target of such authoritarian state
structures was the working class.
The intervening decade has witnessed a dramatic acceleration of
this process, including the Liberal government's granting of powers
to the intelligence agencies to "actively disrupt" vaguely defined
"threats" to national security. Earlier this month, it was revealed
that in response to the coronavirus pandemic, Canada's military
activated a propaganda and surveillance operation to "shape
opinion" by broadcasting government-approved propaganda. Driven by
the fear of social unrest, military officers were prepared to use
the very same methods employed to enforce the bloody neocolonial
occupation of Afghanistan to crack down on popular protests and
other signs of opposition. (See: Canada's military launched
operation to "shape opinion" amid pandemic) [GN]
CANADIAN SOLAR: Settlement Hrg. in Securities Suit Set for Oct. 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Solar Securities Class Action
Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing
Court File No. C-710-10
www.CanadianSolarSettlement.ca
THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS. PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
Did you hold or purchase shares of Canadian Solar Inc. (Canadian
Solar) between May 26, 2009 to and including June 1, 2010?
A settlement has been reached in the class action against Canadian
Solar and certain of its current and former officers and directors
alleging misrepresentations made in certain of Canadian Solar's
oral statements and public disclosures released between May 26,
2009 and June 1, 2010.
The Settlement provides for the payment by the Defendants of the
total amount of $13,000,000.00 USD to resolve those claims (the
"Settlement").
The Settlement is a compromise of disputed claims and is not an
admission of liability or wrongdoing by Canadian Solar or any of
the other Defendants.
The Settlement must be approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. A Settlement approval hearing has been set for October 30,
2020 in Kitchener, Ontario. The Settlement approval hearing will be
heard by video-conference. At or immediately after the hearing, the
Court will also address a motion to approve Class Counsel's fees,
which will not exceed 25% of the recovery plus reimbursement for
expenses incurred in the litigation.
Class Members who wish to comment on, or make an objection to, the
approval of the Settlement Agreement, Distribution Protocol, or
Class Counsel Fees requested may deliver a written submission to
Class Counsel, at the address listed below, no later than October
16, 2020. Any objections delivered by that date will be filed with
the Court.
Siskinds LLP
Canadian Solar Securities Class Action Settlement
Attention: Daniel E.H. Bach, Stefani Cuberovic or Alex Dimson
302–100 Lombard Street
Toronto ON M5C 1M3
Email: donna.mcevoy@siskinds.com
Telephone: 1-800-461-6166
Fax: 519-672-6065
https://www.siskinds.com/class-action/canadian-solar-inc/
For more information about your rights and how to exercise them,
see the Long-Form Notice available online at
www.CanadianSolarSettlement.ca or contact the Administrator at:
Canadian Solar Securities Class Action Settlement Administrator
c/o Epiq Class Action Services Canada Inc.
P.O. Box 507 STN B
Ottawa ON K1P 5P6
Email: info@CanadianSolarSettlement.ca
Telephone: 1-833-683-5858
Fax: 1-866-262-0816
www.CanadianSolarSettlement.ca [GN]
CARDINAL HEALTH: Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2020, that the company remains a defendant in the Generic
Pharmaceutical Antitrust Litigation.
In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including the company
were added as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed by
indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail
pharmacies.
The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation
consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical
distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided
anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and
improperly engaged in customer allocation.
Cardinal said, "We have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints
and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter."
Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Lead Plaintiff Appointed in LA Sheriffs' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2020, that a court has appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care
Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the purported class
action suit initiated by Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief
Fund.
In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed
a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and
certain current and former officers and employees in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015
and May 2018.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making
misrepresentations and omissions related to the integration of the
Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the
Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and
equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions.
In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff.
Cardinal Health said, "We believe that the claims asserted in this
complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against
them."
Cardinal Health, Inc. operates as an integrated healthcare services
and products company in the United States and internationally. It
provides medical products and pharmaceuticals, and solutions that
enhance supply chain efficiency for hospitals, healthcare systems,
pharmacies, ambulatory surgery centers, clinical laboratories, and
physician offices. Cardinal Health, Inc. was founded in 1979 and is
headquartered in Dublin, Ohio.
CARILLON TOWER: Ordered to Pay Monetary Sanctions in Dou Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LINA DOU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARILLON
TOWER/CHICAGO LP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 18 CV 7865 (N.D.
Ill.), Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted in
part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' motion for negative
inferences and discovery sanctions.
According to the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs collectively
invested approximately $49.5 million in a downtown Chicago real
estate project spearheaded by the Defendants. The Plaintiffs
charge that the Defendants stole their invested funds from the
escrow account held with TD Bank, N.A. They allege that
construction on the Project was scheduled to begin in 2015, but no
shovel was ever put into the ground because the Project does not
exist and will never exist. The Plaintiffs therefore claim that
they are victims of a fraud perpetrated by Defendants and seek the
return of their money.
During discovery, the main point of contention among the parties
has centered around the Plaintiffs' efforts to determine the
present location of their money. At a hearing on Feb. 21, 2019,
the Court noted that getting information about where the money is,
is the key to everything in the case. In September 2019, the
Plaintiffs moved to compel the Defendants to produce outstanding
discovery responses to get to the bottom of where their money went.
At the time, the Defendants had answered the Plaintiffs' requests
only partially, had served unverified responses littered with
objections, and had not turned over a single document.
The following production request is pertinent to Plaintiffs'
present motion: Request for Production No. 5: Produce the
chronological banking and accounting records for the approximately
$49 Million in Chinese investor funds from the point in time those
funds were released from the T.D. Bank Escrow fund through to the
present. Those records should, without limitation, include the
release to Carillion Tower/Chicago LP, the loan to Symmetry
Tower/Chicago Properly Owner LLC, and subsequent spending --
showing each expenditure and recipient, each asset or service
purchased, and the location of any remaining current holdings/funds
and the party and/or entity(ies) that control the account(s) where
any such remaining Chinese investor funds are being held
currently.
On Nov. 7, 2019, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to compel
in part and ordered the Defendants to answer and produce documents
to select discovery requests, including Request No. 5, by Nov. 21,
2019. The case was then referred to the Court for discovery
supervision.
In December 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for default
judgment based in part on the Defendants' continued failure to obey
the court's Nov. 7, 2019 order. Although the Plaintiffs withdrew
their demand for litigation-ending sanctions, the Court awarded
them sanctions for the Defendants' failure to make any effort to
comply with the subject order and made it clear that the course of
conduct is not acceptable. Despite the accumulating fine, nearly a
month passed before the Defendants produced their overdue discovery
responses on Feb. 24, 2020. In the interim, TD Bank produced bank
statements in response to the Plaintiffs' subpoena, showing
transactions for all accounts in the names of each Defendant from
2014 forward.
In an effort to resolve the key factual issue in the case and
propel the litigation forward, the Court ordered the Defendants to
submit a chronology by March 13, 2020, showing with citations to TD
Bank records how the funds the Plaintiffs invested flowed through
Defendants and their related entities to outside entities and
vendors. On March 17, 2020, it entered an order granting the
Defendants' request for a 21-day extension to submit the
chronology. The Court further warned them that if they did not
comply with the Court's order, it would entertain a motion for
negative inferences to be drawn from their failure.
The Defendants ignored that order and instead filed a report
informing the Court that they could not meet the deadline because
of the "stay at home" or "shelter in place" orders and "problems
with counsel's home wifi connection." In their report, the
Defendants represented to the Court that they would file the
chronology no later than April 8, 2020. They never requested, nor
did the Court approve such an extension.
Four days after the Defendants' production deadline, on April 7,
2020, the Plaintiffs filed the current motion seeking an adverse
inference sanction, among other forms of sanction, based on the
Defendants' failure to comply with the Court's March 17, 2020
order. Meanwhile, the Defendants' self-extended April 8, 2020
deadline to file the chronology came and went without any progress.
In their response to the Plaintiffs' motion, filed on April 28,
2020, the Defendants admit their failure to comply with the
Court-ordered deadline and resolved to report to the Court with
either the completed chronology or a date to provide it on May 1,
2020.
After the parties fully briefed the current motion for sanctions,
the Defendants filed a series of reports further extending their
self-extended deadlines to submit the chronology, without seeking
the court's permission for any extension. Again, the Defendants
have never requested, nor has the Court approved, an extension of
the firm deadline that the Court set in its March 17, 2020 order.
Not surprisingly, the Defendants still have not produced a
chronology.
The Plaintiffs request sanctions for the Defendants' failure to
produce a chronology in accordance with the Court's March 17, 2020
order and for other discovery failures. The Plaintiffs' first
argument is that the Defendants should be sanctioned because they
failed to comply with the Court's order of March 17, 2020, which
directed the Defendants to submit a chronology showing the flow of
the Plaintiffs' money by April 3, 2020. Nonetheless, the
Defendants insist that sanctions are not warranted because: (1) the
pandemic and the resulting stay-at-home orders have constrained
working conditions; (2) their overall discovery record demonstrates
substantial effort and compliance; and (3) the Court's March 17,
2020 order was not a conventional discovery order.
Judge Kim holds that while it is true that the country was in the
early stages of the novel coronavirus outbreak when the Court
issued its order on March 17, 2020, the Defendants' failures to
comply with discovery orders precede the World Health
Organization's declaration that the spread of COVID-19 had become a
pandemic. The Defendants did not comply with the requirement and
continued to flout it even after the Court provided them with
multiple opportunities to comply and imposed modest monetary
sanctions. The Judge is keenly aware of the challenges that the
coronavirus pandemic presents to traditional litigation, but it is
not the right of a party to restructure court deadlines at will.
More importantly, the Defendants have yet to explain why the
current public health crisis has impacted their ability to explain
the flow of funds, which they controlled, by examining their own
bank records. For these reasons, the Defendants' failure to submit
the chronology by April 3, 2020, amounts to a sanctionable Rule 37
violation.
In addition to their argument regarding the Defendants' failure to
provide the ordered chronology, the Plaintiffs argue that sanctions
are warranted because of "other failures." But the Plaintiffs'
arguments are underdeveloped and unsupported. The Judge is unable
to evaluate the propriety of the accusations because the deposition
transcript on which the Plaintiffs rely is not part of the record.
In short, the Plaintiffs did not sufficiently support their claim
that discovery sanctions are warranted for "other failures."
Having concluded that the Defendants failed to submit a chronology
by the court-ordered deadline of April 3, 2020, and in light of
their continued defiance of the Court's order, the Judge must
fashion an appropriate sanction. The Judge finds that an adverse
inference instruction would be out of proportion to the Defendants'
conduct -- which the Court has found is limited to their failure to
comply with the court's March 17, 2020 order. That said, the Judge
does not condone the Defendants' flagrant disregard of the
Court-imposed deadline and agrees with the Plaintiffs that "a stiff
penalty" is in order.
Accordingly, the Defendants were ordered to: (1) produce the
chronology of funds; (2) pay monetary sanctions in the amount of
$18,000 ($2,000 per week from April 3, 2020, to the date of the
Order) to the Plaintiffs; (3) pay an additional monetary sanction
of $1,000 per day from the date of the Order to June 26, 2020, or
until a complete chronology accounting for the invested funds is
produced, whichever is earlier; and (4) pay the Plaintiffs'
attorney's fees in connection with briefing the motion for
sanctions.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Kim granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for negative inferences and discovery
sanctions.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/HN5wMl from
Leagle.com.
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Managers Sued Over Breaks for Breast Milk Pumps
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Burden, writing for HRDive, reports that the managers at an
Arizona Chipotle violated federal law when they refused a worker's
request to pump breast milk during her shifts, according to a
proposed class action complaint [Hendrix v. Chipotle Mexican Grill
Inc. No. 2:20-cv-01595 (D. Ariz. Aug. 12, 2020)].
The managers refused to let cashier Noel Hendrix take breaks to
express breast milk, claiming on one specific occasion that the
restaurant was too busy and that "she should have managed her time
better before coming into work." This refusal caused her breasts to
visibly leak, which prompted one manager to allow her a 15-minute
break.
Shortly thereafter, a manager told Hendrix that "he had a business
to run and could not stop everything" for her to pump, Hendrix
alleged in court documents. The manager told Hendrix any complaint
she made to corporate would be futile, as he was "untouchable," the
complaint says. The managers discriminated against Hendrix on the
basis of her sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. [GN]
CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over ZF 9HP Transmission Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Chrysler
transmission problems have caused a class action lawsuit that
alleges ZF 9HP 9-speed transmissions are defective, were rushed to
the market and cannot be properly repaired.
The plaintiff says the Chrysler transmission problems cause rough,
delayed or sudden shifting that eventually leads to transmission
failures in these vehicles.
-- 2016-2019 Jeep Cherokee
-- 2016-2019 Jeep Renegade
-- 2016-2018 Chrysler 200
-- 2016-2019 ProMaster City
Customers also claim the 9-speed transmissions fail to shift, grind
gears, cause loud noises during shifting and experience harsh
engagement of gears.
According to the class action lawsuit, the ZF 9HP automatic
transmission was supposed to be an improvement over 6-speed
transmissions because of its "unique 9.8 ratio spread and
computer-controlled shifting which were designed together to allow
for better performance and fuel economy, while maintaining the ease
of use of a traditional automatic transmission."
But the plaintiff claims the transmissions were plagued with
problems before the vehicles were ever sold. The class action
alleges glitches in the 9-speed transmission software was causing
problems in 2013 that caused shifting that wasn't smooth as
intended.
Other alleged Chrysler transmission problems include harsh
accelerations and decelerations, sudden loses of power and
premature wearing of transmission components. The primary cause of
the transmission problems is allegedly the transmission control
modules which cause serious safety concerns while driving.
Florida plaintiff Brian Razen purchased a new 2017 Jeep Renegade in
February 2018, but in December 2018 the Jeep allegedly experienced
hard shifting at slow speeds. And the Jeep had more problems the
same month while driving 20 mph on the highway when the engine shut
off.
The plaintiff says he coasted to the side of the road and found the
oil was a quart low even though the oil was changed a month before.
In January 2019, the plaintiff took the Jeep to the dealership when
the Renegade had nearly 43,000 miles on the odometer.
He says he told dealer technicians about the engine shutting off
and also told them the Jeep had been jerking, bucking and lurching
with sudden or harsh acceleration. The oil was changed and the
plaintiff says he was told to drive the vehicle 3,000 miles and
return to the dealer because the oil change was part of an oil
consumption test.
The plaintiff took the Jeep back to the dealer after driving for
3,000 miles and told technicans two quarts of oil had been used in
3,000 miles.
He says he also told the dealership the Renegade "had experienced
rough, delayed, or sudden shifting, failure to shift, harsh
engagement of gears, sudden or harsh accelerations, jerking;
bucking, lurching and sudden loss of power."
Razen says it felt like he was being kicked in the spine every time
the Jeep shifted gears. The dealer technician inspected the
Renegade and allegedly found excessive oil was used.
The dealership also performed a "compression and leak down test"
and told the plaintiff the engine block needed to be replaced, a
job that took 10 days before the plaintiff was able to drive the
Jeep. But the lawsuit alleges the same day he picked up his
vehicle, the Jeep lurched, bucked and jerked, causing the plaintiff
to again contact the dealership.
He allegedly continued to have the same transmission problems with
the Renegade during a 30-day period he was told to drive the Jeep
so the transmission could relearn his driving habits.
More dealer visits occurred as the transmission software was
updated, but the class action says the vehicle continues to lurch
and jerk.
According to the lawsuit, the 9-speed transmission problems require
expensive repairs and sometimes replacement of the transmission.
Fiat Chrysler (FCA US) has issued technical service bulletins
(TSBs) and three transmission software updates, actions the lawsuit
alleges proves the automaker knows about the alleged transmission
problems.
But even with the repairs, customers say their vehicles still
suffer from transmission problems.
The Chrysler transmission class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida: Razen, et
al., v. FCA US LLC.
The plaintiff is represented by Stephen J. Bagge, P.A., and Berger
Montague PC.
CarComplaints.com has complaints from owners of the FCA vehicles
named in the transmission lawsuit.
Jeep Cherokee - 2016 / 2017 / 2018 / 2019
Jeep Renegade - 2016 / 2017 / 2018 / 2019
Chrysler 200 - 2016 / 2017
Ram ProMaster City - 2016 / 2017 / 2018 / 2019 [GN]
CLIVE PALMER: Lawnmowing Man Mulls Class Action Over WA Border
--------------------------------------------------------------
Syan Dougherty, writing for 7News, reports that a Girrawheen
lawnmowing man is threatening Clive Palmer with legal action after
deciding he was sick and tired of the billionaire attacking WA.
It would be a David and Goliath battle - but great-grandfather Phil
O'Neill says he's up for it.
The humble groundskeeper has a message for the billionaire he has
threatened to sue.
"Sit on this, Clive," he told 7NEWS, holding a pitch fork.
"I'm just sick of him."
Mr. O'Neill said he believed the grass was greener on this side of
the border and didn't want Mr Palmer killing it.
He paid around $200 to place a notice in The West Australian on
Aug. 22 directed at the mining magnate.
"Should your court action to reopen WA borders be responsible for a
surge in COVID-19 cases, causing restrictions to our lifestyle and
business, I will start a class action to recover and loss of income
due to your actions," the notice said.
"Should a death be related to your actions, I will seek for you to
be held to account."
The 70-year-old insists it's not a flippant threat, saying he has
done his research and has received legal advice.
Mr Palmer is getting lonelier on his border stance since the
Federal Government withdrew support in recent weeks.
But the billionaire is backing himself.
On Twitter on Aug. 22, he said Mark McGowan forced him into this
position because the Premier ceased negotiations, declaring war
against Mr Palmer.
The mining magnate has duelled in a courtroom battleground many
times — but never against Phil O'Neill.
And Mr. O'Neill wants to be heard loud and clear.
"Clive Palmer: Go home and stay home," he said.
"No one wants you here."
The case was set to be back in court on Aug. 24, which will
determine whether it will then go to the High Court in October.
[GN]
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Bid to Dismiss Salas Securities Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 16-6509 (ES) (CLW) (D.
N.J.), Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b), and under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA").
The Plaintiffs bring a putative class action under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Defendants
Cognizant, Gordon Coburn, and Steven E. Schwartz. The putative
securities class action involves an alleged bribery scheme that a
criminal indictment, and other court filings, was spearheaded by
Cognizant former President, Coburn, and its Chief Legal and
Corporate Affairs Officer, Schwartz. Coburn and Schwartz, among
others, allegedly devised and implemented a scheme to bribe Indian
government officials in order to secure permits that were necessary
to operate Cognizant's facility known as the Knowledge Industry
Township Campus ("KITS Facility") in Chennai, India. The KITS
Facility was built in one of India's Special Economic Zones
("SEZs") and was Cognizant's largest SEZ facility. By locating the
KITS Facility in an SEZ, Cognizant would gain several lucrative tax
and labor benefits.
At the core of the allegations, the Plaintiffs contend that
Cognizant touted the benefits of its SEZ licenses while failing to
disclose the bribery scheme orchestrated in connection with the
KITS Facility, which ultimately could not operate without the
necessary underlying permits. Coburn, Schwartz, and other members
of senior management allegedly worked with the Indian-based
construction company contracted to develop the KITS Facility to
ultimately devise and implement the bribery scheme.
Under the scheme, Cognizant's contractor would facilitate payments
to Indian government officials, and Cognizant would reimburse its
contractor for these costs. As such, the bribe payments appeared
as legitimate reimbursement requests from Cognizant's contractor.
Consequently, Cognizant overstated its earnings to investors
because it recorded the bribe payments as capital expenditures
rather than expenses. Cognizant's stock price dropped by more than
13%, or $7.29 per share, after it finally disclosed that it was
conducting an internal investigation into whether certain payments
relating to facilities in India were made improperly and in
possible violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and
other applicable laws.
The Second Amended Complaint comes before the Court following an
opinion by the late Judge William H. Walls dated Aug. 8, 2018, on
motions to dismiss the consolidated First Amended Class Action
Complaint. In Count I of the FAC, the Plaintiffs brought claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against
Cognizant; Francisco D'Souza ("D'Souza"), Cognizant's former CEO;
Karen McLoughlin, Cognizant's former CFO; and Coburn, Cognizant's
former President. In Count II of the FAC, the Plaintiffs brought
claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against D'Souza,
McLoughlin, and Coburn.
Ultimately, Judge Walls concluded that Coburn's scienter could be
imputed to Cognizant under the broad and middle approaches followed
by various Circuit Courts of Appeals. Accordingly, Count I of the
FAC survived against Cognizant only. The Court also held that
Count II survived against Coburn and allowed the Plaintiffs to
amend Count II against D'Souza and McLoughlin in a subsequent
complaint.
In the SAC, the Plaintiffs reallege claims under Count I for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
against Cognizant and Count II against Coburn for violation of
Section 20(a). In addition, they brought claims under Counts I and
II against Schwartz based on new allegations that implicate him in
the bribery scheme.
Cognizant and Schwartz move to dismiss Count I for failure to plead
(i) misrepresentations or omissions and (ii) scienter. Coburn and
Schwartz also move to dismiss Count II.
The matter was then transferred to Judge Salas on July 26, 2019.
On the same day, the Plaintiffs filed one "Omnibus Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint." Thereafter, on Aug. 26, 2019, the Defendants
filed three separate reply briefs.
Before the Court are three motions to dismiss the SAC from the
Defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and 9(b), and under the PSLRA. The Court has considered the
parties' submissions and decides the Motions after the extensive
oral argument conducted on May 19, 2020, via videoconferencing due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
A Section 10(b) claim is subject to the PSLRA's heightened pleading
standard. The elements in contention are (i) material
misrepresentation or omission, and (ii) scienter.
For material misrepresentation or omission, Judge Salas finds no
reason to sway from Judge Walls's finding of materiality at the
pleading stage based on the additional allegations in the SAC. The
Government Filings do not contradict the qualitative nature of the
alleged misstatements because those documents relate to the bribery
scheme for essential permits that were necessary for the operation
and occupation of the KITS Facility. Accordingly, the alleged
financial misstatements are sufficiently material at the pleading
stage.
Next, Judge Salas assesses whether the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
claim may proceed against Schwartz. The Plaintiffs seek to
attribute statements made in Cognizant's earnings releases to
Schwartz because he signed various SEC Forms 8-K that attached the
releases for dissemination to shareholders. Schwartz argues that
the Plaintiffs' claim fails because he is not the "maker" of any
allegedly material misstatements attached to the Forms 8-K.
Judge Salas finds that (i) Schwartz was not the "maker" of those
statements under Rule 10b-5 because the Plaintiffs fail to allege
how Schwartz had "ultimate authority" over the alleged
misstatements attached to Cognizant's Forms 8-K; and (ii) the
Plaintiffs' claim for scheme liability against Schwartz survives
because the SAC adequately pleads the remaining element, Schwartz's
scienter. Judge Salas also agrees that Schwartz cannot be the
"maker" of statements contained in the Sustainability Reports.
Schwartz is not alleged to have directly drafted or completely
approved any of the claimed misstatements in the Sustainability
Reports, and the Plaintiffs do not contest Schwartz's arguments in
this regard. And because the Court does not disturb Judge Walls's
holding, any attempt by te Plaintiffs to hold Schwartz liable as
the maker of statements in the SOX Certifications (or attendant
filings) by way of his SOX sub-certifications is unpersuasive at
this juncture.
For scienter, Judge Salas notes that in her briefing, Cognizant
does not appear to contest the sufficiency of the allegations that
are presently before the Court as they relate to Coburn's scienter.
Nor does Cognizant attempt to suggest that the Court should
reassess the Prior Opinion's conclusion that Coburn's scienter was
adequately alleged. However, even if the parties had raised the
issue of Coburn's scienter, Judge Salas finds that the new
allegations contained in the SAC serve to bolster Judge Walls's
prior analysis because they describe Coburn's specific involvement
in devising and implementing the alleged bribery scheme in
connection with the KITS Facility. Accordingly, for all of the
reasons stated in the Court's Prior Opinion and based on the newly
alleged facts detailing Coburn's participation, execution, and
concealment of the bribery scheme, the Plaintiffs have adequately
pled Coburn's scienter.
Judge Salas also finds that cumulatively, the Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding Schwartz reflect a strong inference of
scienter. Collectively, the allegations provide a strong inference
that, at minimum, Schwartz acted recklessly by virtue of his
participation in the bribery scheme and his subsequent failure to
account for the scheme's consequences in (i) his internal dealings
with auditors, and (ii) his various internal reporting functions.
By advising co-conspirators to disguise the true nature of the
bribe payments, the allegations do not support the inference that
Schwartz was merely an innocent or negligent bystander. Nor do
Schwartz's alleged actions reflect corporate mismanagement.
Rather, the totality of the allegations support the inference that
Schwartz acted in an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care, that presented a danger of misleading buyers or
sellers that was either known or is so obvious that Schwartz must
have been aware of it.
Cognizant asks the Court to revisit its prior conclusion that
Coburn's scienter may be imputed to Cognizant under the doctrine of
corporate scienter. Notwithstanding the implications of the scheme
liability claim as it relates to Cognizant's scienter, Judge Salas
assesses whether it may impute Coburn and/or Schwartz's scienter to
Cognizant under any approach to the corporate scienter doctrine.
Judge Salas concludes that scienter may be imputed to Cognizant
under all three approaches to the corporate scienter doctrine that
currently divide the Circuit Courts -- the narrow approach, the
broad approach, and the middle approach.
Finally, Count II of the SAC asserts claims under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against Coburn and Schwartz. Because Judge Salas
finds that the Plaintiffs adequately alleged an underlying
violation of Section 10(b) against Cognizant, the remaining issue
is whether the Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Coburn and
Schwartz are "controlling persons" under Section 20(a). By virtue
of Coburn's and Schwartz's alleged participation in and
implementation of the bribery scheme, the Plaintiffs adequately
plead that both defendants had knowledge of the underlying bribery
scheme. Lastly, with respect to each Defendant's scienter, Judge
Salas can infer that any subsequent inaction by Coburn and Schwartz
was conducted with the requisite intent. Thus, Judge Salas finds
that the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against Coburn and
Schwartz may proceed past the pleading stage.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Salas denied the Defendants'
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/BFA2Uw from Leagle.com.
COMMONWEALTH BANK: Faces Another Life Insurance Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that Commonwealth Bank (CBA) has been
hit with another class action, with the latest lawsuit alleging the
lender's financial planners sold customers "overpriced inhouse"
life insurance products.
The bank announced on Aug. 21 that Shine Lawyers has started class
action proceedings in the Federal Court against Commonwealth
Financial Planning and Financial Wisdom, two CBA-owned businesses.
Financial Wisdom has ceased providing licensee services since May
12 and no longer has advisers authorised to provide advice under
its licence.
The proceedings are "in relation to certain CommInsure life
insurance policies" that were recommended by financial advisers
appointed by the two businesses, CBA says in a statement.
Shine has also targeted CBA subsidiary Colonial Mutual Life
Assurance Society in the class action.
CBA says the claim is being reviewed and the bank "will provide any
update as required when appropriate".
Shine Lawyers declined to provide details about the class action
but says it will issue a statement later on Aug. 24.
The law firm has previously announced it plans to file separate
class actions against CBA, Westpac-owned BT and AMP for allegedly
charging customers excessive insurance premiums.
The AMP class action has already been filed in the Federal Court.
[GN]
CONAIR CORP: Faces Paguada Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Web Site
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSHUE PAGUADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Case No. 1:20-cv-06960-SHS
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software.
The Plaintiff asserts that when he visited the Defendant's Web
site, http://www.cuisinart.com/,in August 2020, he has encountered
multiple barriers, which denied him access and user experience
similar to that of a sighted individual. Because the Web site lacks
variety of features and accommodations, the Plaintiff says he was
effectively barred from being able to enjoy the privileges and
benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation.
Conair Corporation is a home appliance company that owns and
operates the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Ave., Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Tel: (929) 324-0717
Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
CONDOR HOSPITALITY: Merger Suit Nixed, Awaits for Legal Fee Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Condor 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 the company is awaiting for the
parties in the class action suits that have been voluntarily
dismissed to resolve any claim for fees and expenses related to the
dismissed actions.
On July 19, 2019, Condor's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into the Merger Agreement with NHT Operating Partnership,
LLC, NHT REIT Merger Sub, LLC, NHT Operating Partnership II, LLC,
and Condor Hospitality Limited Partnership. Pursuant to the terms
of the Merger Agreement, Condor's stockholders will receive $11.10
in cash for each share of Condor they own
On August 20, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company and each of the Company directors, operating
partnership, NHT Parent, NHT Merger Sub and NHT Merger Op, in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Graham v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01552. The case was voluntarily dismissed by
plaintiffs on January 28, 2020.
A second putative class action complaint was filed on August 23,
2019 against the Company and each of the Company directors, the
Operating Partnership, Parent, Merger Sub and Merger OP in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware under the
caption Sabatini v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-01564.
These complaints asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of
a class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9, and alleged
that the preliminary proxy statement filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on Schedule 14A on
August 9, 2019 (the "Preliminary Proxy Statement") contained
materially incomplete and misleading disclosures.
Each of the complaints sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining defendants from taking steps to consummate the
proposed transactions and damages, along with fees and costs. The
case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on January 28, 2020.
On August 26, 2019, a putative class action was filed against
the Company and each of the Company's directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York under
the caption Raul v. Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 1:19-cv-07968.
The complaint asserted claims, purportedly brought on behalf of a
class of shareholders, under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9 and alleged that
the Preliminary Proxy Statement contained materially incomplete and
misleading disclosures.
The complaint sought, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining defendants from taking steps to consummate the proposed
transaction and damages, along with fees and costs. The case was
voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on November 19, 2019.
Pursuant to a Confidential Memorandum of Understanding dated
September 16, 2019 between the plaintiffs in the above three
actions and the Company, if the parties do not resolve any claim
for fees and expenses related to the dismissed actions, the
plaintiff may assert claims for fees, if at all, in the United
States District Court of the District of Delaware.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Condor Hospitality Trust, Inc. operates as a real estate investment
trust. The Company deals in the investment and ownership of hotels.
Condor Hospitality Trust serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in Norfolk, Nebraska.
CONDUENT INC: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Employees Retirement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE PUERTO RICO
ELECTRIC POWER AUTHORITY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONDUENT INC., et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 19-8237 (SDW) (SCM) (D. N.J.), Judge
Susan D. Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey denied Defendants Conduent Inc., Ashok Vemuri, and Brian
Webb-Walsh's Motion to Dismiss Lead Plaintiff's Amended Class
Action Complaint.
Conduent is a New York corporation based in New Jersey, with a
common stock that trades on the New York Stock Exchange. The
company provides business processing services to commercial and
government clients, including electronic toll collection (e.g.,
E-ZPass) for government clients.
During the Class Period, Defendants Mr. Vemuri and Mr. Webb-Walsh
served as Conduent's CEO and CFO, respectively. The action arises
from allegations that, during the Class Period, the Defendants
overstated to investors the progress that Conduent was making in
modernizing the IT infrastructure supporting its electronic toll
collection business, resulting in a significant drop in the
company's stock price when Mr. Vemuri revealed the truth on Nov. 7,
2018.
Plaintiff Employees Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority filed the instant suit on March 8, 2019 and Lead
Plaintiff filed the Amended Class Action Complaint on Sept. 13,
2019. The Amended Complaint asserts two counts of securities
fraud: (I) violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (against all Defendants)
and (II) violations of Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
(against the Individual Defendants). The Defendants subsequently
moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and briefing was timely
completed.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that on Feb. 22, 2017, Conduent
announced a business plan that it called "Strategic
Transformation." The first phase of the Strategic Transformation
included evaluating the company's third-party vendor contracts and
inventorying the company's IT infrastructure to consolidate its
data centers. At various times in 2017, the Defendants represented
to investors that these improvements were part of their plan to
grow the company by relying on technology, and they specifically
identified the platform-based technology supporting Conduent's
tolling operations as a model for profitable growth. They further
identified Conduent's tolling operations as a "core" business
segment.
The Lead Plaintiff alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants continued to make materially false and misleading
statements, informing investors that the initial phase of the
Strategic Transformation was complete, and failing to disclose that
the lack of systems inventory and ensuing problems with the data
migration were causing significant problems with Conduent's tolling
business, resulting in reduced revenue and fines being levied
against Conduent.
Before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Lead
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a
claim pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and
12(b)(6) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
For misrepresentation or omission, Judge Wigenton finds that the
Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants' misrepresentations
and omissions were material because they created the misleading
impression that Conduent would be able to achieve profitable growth
based on its progress with the Strategic Transformation. The value
of the information is reflected in the Defendants' efforts to
routinely inform investors about Strategic Transformation
milestones, such as curing legacy IT inefficiencies by addressing
the company's sub-optimal vendor relationships and progressing with
the company's data center consolidation. Without these
misrepresentations, investors could only assume that the Strategic
Transformation remained on track, despite the Defendants' alleged
knowledge to the contrary. Thus, the statements and omissions
"significantly altered the total mix of information available" to
the reasonable investor.
The Judge has also reviewed the detailed allegations and the other
factual allegations in the Amended Complaint and finds that Lead
Plaintiff has met its heightened burden under the PSLRA to plead
its allegations of misrepresentations and omissions with
particularity.
Finally, the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges actionable and
material misrepresentations and omissions with the required
specificity. The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants
made several public statements in which they omitted material
information. The Defendants also omitted that as a result of the
IT issues, Conduent had accrued significant penalties and lost
anticipated revenue. However, material omissions are not
forward-looking statements and therefore do not qualify for safe
harbor protection.
Turning to scienter, Judge Wigenton holds that (i) the
circumstances, while not conclusive, tend further to bolster the
inference that the Individual Defendants knew at the time their
statements were false or were reckless in disregarding the obvious
risk of misleading the public; (ii) the factual allegations, in
view of the other allegations contained in the Amended Complaint
regarding the importance of the data migration, the impact of
infrastructure problems on the tolling business, and the core
nature of the tolling business, support an inference of corporate
scienter; and (iii) the allegations are sufficient to meet Rule
8(a)'s standard requirement of a "short and plain statement" of
economic loss and its causal connection to alleged
misrepresentations and/or omissions. Because the Amended Complaint
sufficiently pleads the elements of a Section 10(b) claim, the
Judge will deny the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I.
For the reasons she set forth, Judge Wigenton denied the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/DfjfWA from Leagle.com.
CONSTAR FINANCIAL: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Constar Financial
Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shifra Gordon,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Constar Financial Services, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-07074 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Constar Financial Services, LLC, is a debt collection agency with
its principal place of business located in Phoenix, Arizona.[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
CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Voigt Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended July 4, 2020, that the company continues to defend a
putative class action suit initiated by Gary D. Voigt.
On July 17, 2018, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Ply Gem Parent, LLC ("Ply
Gem"), and for certain limited purposes as set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), pursuant to
which, at the closing of the merger, Ply Gem would be merged with
and into NCI, with NCI continuing its existence as a corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Merger").
On November 14, 2018, an individual stockholder, Gary D. Voigt,
filed a putative class action Complaint in the Delaware Court of
Chancery against Clayton Dubilier & Rice, LLC ("CD&R"), Clayton,
Dubilier & Rice Fund VIII, L.P. ("CD&R Fund VIII"), and certain
directors of the Company.
Voigt purports to assert claims on behalf of himself, on behalf of
a class of other similarly situated stockholders of the Company,
and derivatively on behalf of the Company, the nominal defendant.
An Amended Complaint was filed on April 11, 2019.
The Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment against CD&R Fund VIII and CD&R, and for
breach of fiduciary duty against twelve director defendants in
connection with the Merger.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint and, on February
10, 2020, the court denied the motions except as to four of the
director defendants.
Voigt seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc., formerly NCI Building Systems,
Inc., incorporated on December 23, 1991, is a manufacturer and
marketer of metal products in North America. The Company's
operating segments include Engineered building systems, Metal
components, Insulated Metal Panels and Metal coil coating. The
company is based in Cary, North Carolina.
COVETRUS INC: Suit by Hollywood, Fla. Cops Retirement Sys. Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Covertus, 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 initiated by the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police Officers'
Retirement System.
On September 30, 2019, the City of Hollywood (Florida) Police
Officers' Retirement System filed a putative securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of
Covetrus common stock from February 8, 2019 through August 12,
2019, against the Company, its Former Parent, its former Chief
Executive Officer and President, and our former Chief Financial
Officer.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions, primarily regarding the Company's
financial prospects and the integration costs relating to the
business combination involving the Animal Health Business and Vets
First Choice.
The suit seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.
Covertus said, "We intend to defend the matter vigorously and have
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Given the uncertainty of
litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal
standards that must be met for, among other things, class
certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this
action."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Covertus, Inc. is a global animal-health technology and services
company dedicated to supporting the companion, equine, and
large-animal veterinary markets. Its mission is to provide the best
products, services, and technology to veterinarians and
animal-health practitioners ("Customers") across the globe, so they
can deliver exceptional care to their patients ("Animal Owners")
when and where it is needed. The company is based in Portland,
Maine.
CRAFT BREW: Continues to Defend Suits Over Anheuser-Busch Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craft Brew Alliance 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 class
action suits related to its merger with Anheuser-Busch Companies,
LLC.
Craft Brew previously announced its entry into the Agreement and
Plan of Merger, dated as of November 11, 2019, by and among the
Company, Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (ABC), a Delaware limited
liability company ("A-B"), and Barrel Subsidiary, Inc., a
Washington corporation and a direct wholly owned subsidiary of A-B
("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub will merge with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of A-B. In connection with the
Merger, several lawsuits were filed on behalf of shareholders of
the Company.
In connection with the pending merger transaction with ABC, several
lawsuits were filed on behalf of the company's shareholders.
On January 3, 2020, a purported class action complaint brought on
behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders, captioned
Kost et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
20-2-00389-1 SEA, was filed in the Superior Court of Washington,
King County (the "Kost Action").
On January 14, 2020, a second purported class action complaint
brought on behalf of a putative class of our shareholders,
captioned Birkby v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
20CV02867, was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon
for the County of Multnomah (the "Birkby Action").
On July 9, 2020, a third purported class action complaint brought
on behalf of a putative class of our shareholders, captioned Malloy
v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No. 20CV23549, was filed
in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah (the "Malloy Action").
The Birkby, Malloy and Kost Actions assert state law claims for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty against the company and its
directors, and the Birkby and Malloy Actions also assert claims
against the company's Chief Executive Officer and ABC. The Malloy
and Kost Actions also include allegations of material misstatements
and omissions in the company's definitive proxy statement filed
with the SEC on January 21, 2020 (the "Proxy Statement").
In addition, four complaints were filed in federal court asserting
claims against the company and its directors under the federal
securities laws and alleging material misstatements and omissions
in the Proxy Statement: Sabatini et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00138, filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware on January 29, 2020 on
behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders (the
"Sabatini Action"), Halberstam v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01243, filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on February 7, 2020 on
behalf of an individual shareholder (the "Halberstam Action"),
Michael Roberts et al. v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00208, filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware on February 12, 2020 on behalf of a
putative class of our shareholders (the "Michael Roberts Action"),
and Dennis Roberts v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-00337, filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on February 10, 2020 on behalf of an
individual shareholder (the "Dennis Roberts Action"). The Sabatini
Action also asserts claims against ABC and a subsidiary of ABC.
On February 18, 2020, the company announced the resolution of
claims with the plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions, whereby the company filed supplemental
disclosures and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, Halberstam, and
Michael Roberts Actions dismissed their individual claims with
prejudice, and plaintiffs in the Kost, Sabatini, and Michael
Roberts Actions dismissed their class claims without prejudice.
The company did not view the supplemental disclosures as material
or required by applicable law, but determined to make the
disclosures in order to avoid the expense and risks inherent in
further litigation.
On April 1, 2020, plaintiff in the Dennis Roberts Action dismissed
his case without prejudice.
The Birkby and Malloy Actions have not been resolved. On March 31,
2020, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to abate the
Birkby Action until September 30, 2020.
There have been no substantive proceedings to date in the Malloy
Action.
Craft Brew Alliance Inc. operates breweries that offers a wide
assortment of beers. The Company owns and operates production
breweries with adjacent restaurants and pubs in parts of the United
States. The company is based in Portland, Oregon.
CREDIT CONTROL: Lebron Sues in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Blima Lebron, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control LLC dba
Credit Control & Collections, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
7:20-cv-07068 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Credit Control, LLC, provides financial services. The Company
provides early out solutions, collections, and debt settlement
services.[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
CURO GROUP: Seeks Initial Approval of Yellowdog Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CURO Group Holdings Corp. 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 case, Yellowdog
Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F. Gayhardt,
William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662, have
submitted papers to the Court seeking an order preliminarily
approving the proposed settlement and providing for notice to the
class and a final settlement hearing.
On December 5, 2018, a putative securities fraud class action
lawsuit was filed against the Company and its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and chief operating officer in the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas, captioned
Yellowdog Partners, LP v. CURO Group Holdings Corp., Donald F.
Gayhardt, William Baker and Roger W. Dean, Civil Action No. 18-2662
(the "Yellowdog Action").
On May 31, 2019, plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint naming
Doug Rippel, Chad Faulkner, Mike McKnight, Friedman Fleischer &
Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL Executive Partners II, L.P.,
and FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P. (collectively, the "FFL Defendants")
as additional defendants. The complaint alleges that the Company
and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and that certain defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as "control persons" of CURO.
Plaintiff purports to bring these claims on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased Company common stock between April 27, 2018
and October 24, 2018.
Plaintiff generally alleges that, during the putative class period,
the Company made misleading statements and omitted material
information regarding its efforts to transition the Canadian
inventory of products from Single-Pay loans to Open-End loans.
Plaintiff asserts that the Company and the individual defendants
made these misstatements and omissions to keep the stock price
high. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief.
On May 27, 2020, the parties accepted a mediator's proposal to
settle the action for $9.0 million.
On June 1, 2020, the parties informed the Court of the settlement.
On August 1, 2020, the parties' submitted settlement papers to the
Court seeking an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement and providing for notice to the class and a final
settlement hearing.
The Company's directors' and officers' insurance carriers are
expected to pay any amount in excess of the $2.5 million retention
under the policy.
As of June 30, 2020, the Company recorded a $9.0 million receivable
in "Other assets" and an incremental $9.0 million liability in
"Accounts Payable and accrued liabilities."
In addition, there was $1.3 million in "Accounts payable and
accrued liabilities," which represents the liability remaining of
the $2.5 million insurance retention less cash payments made toward
the retention.
CURO Group Holdings Corp., a diversified consumer finance company,
provides consumer finance to a range of underbanked consumers in
the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The company was
formerly known as Speedy Group Holdings Corp. and changed its name
to CURO Group Holdings Corp. in May 2016. CURO Group Holdings Corp.
was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.
CVS HEALTH: Bid to Consolidate Rochester Drug & Mylan Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 motion to consolidated the putative class
action suits entitled, Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Mylan
Inc., et al. and Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al., is
pending.
This putative class action was filed in March 2020 against
Caremark, other pharmacy benefit managements(PBMs) and the
manufacturer of EpiPen products and their authorized generics on
behalf of purported classes of direct purchasers of these products.
The complaint alleges violations of The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and claims that rebate agreements
between the drug manufacturer and PBMs caused the direct purchasers
to pay inflated prices for these drug products.
A nearly identical case was separately filed in the same court
(Dakota Drug, Inc. v. Mylan Inc., et al.) and a motion to
consolidate that lawsuit with this case is pending.
The Company is defending itself against these claims.
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC
andCorporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
CVS HEALTH: Trial Next Year in Corcoran Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
CVS Health 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 trial in the case, Corcoran et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation., is scheduled to occur in 2021.
Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS
Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois).
These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July
and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the consumer
protection statutes of certain states on behalf of a class of
consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs.
Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on
behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare
and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. and Plumbers Welfare Fund,
Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and
August 2016.
In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged
for certain prescription drugs by not submitting the price
available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the
pharmacy's usual and customary price.
In the Corcoran case, the U.S. District Court granted summary
judgment to the Company on plaintiffs' claims in their entirety and
certified certain subclasses in September 2017. In June 2019, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the U.S.
District Court's grant of summary judgment and reversed the U.S.
District Court's narrowing of the requested class.
The Corcoran case is proceeding to a trial on a six state class
basis, and trial is scheduled to occur in 2021.
The Sheet Metal Workers plaintiffs have amended their complaint to
assert a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO") premised on an alleged conspiracy
between the Company and other pharmacy benefit managements
("PBMs").
CVS Health Corporation, incorporated on August 22, 1996, together
with its subsidiaries, is an integrated pharmacy healthcare
company. The Company provides pharmacy care for the senior
community through Omnicare, Inc. (Omnicare) and Omnicare's
long-term care (LTC) operations, which include distribution of
pharmaceuticals, related pharmacy consulting and other ancillary
services to chronic care facilities and other care settings. It
operates through three segments: Pharmacy Services, Retail/LTC
andCorporate. The company is based in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
DENNY'S INC: Court Refuses to Certify FLSA Class Action in Rafferty
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anna L. Rothschild, Esq. -- arothschild@HuntonAK.com -- and
Christopher M. Pardo, Esq. -- cpardo@HuntonAK.com -- of Hunton
Andrews Kurth, in an article for The National Law Review, report
that in August, the Southern District of Florida declined to
certify a nationwide class of Denny's servers alleging the
restaurant chain had violated the minimum wage and tip credit
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on the basis that
the named plaintiff failed to provide enough evidence that the
servers were similarly situated.
Plaintiff Lindsay Rafferty worked as a server at a Denny's
restaurant in Akron, Ohio from February 2012 through October 2018.
On November 13, 2019, Rafferty filed a lawsuit against Denny's
alleging that the restaurant paid its employee servers a
sub-minimum hour wage under the tip credit provisions of the FLSA
and that Denny's required its servers to perform non-tipped
"sidework."
Rafferty sought to conditionally certify a nationwide class of
approximately 8,400 Denny's servers, identifying servers with
similar claims that worked at Denny's locations in Vermont,
Virginia, Massachusetts, California and Hawaii. Rafferty submitted
six affidavits from the putative class members swearing they had
similar duties, were paid under the same pay plan, and were paid at
a tip credit rate for the performance of "sidework." The complaint
included a long list of the types of "sidework" Denny's required
servers to perform, including taking out trash, cleaning tasks,
host duties, preparing delivery order, and prepping food items.
Rafferty also alleged that servers were required to perform
non-tipped work related to their tipped server positions, such as
cleaning and setting tables, toasting bread and making coffee.
U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham denied the motion for
conditional certification on the basis that Rafferty failed to
identify a uniform corporate-wide policy that violated the FLSA.
In its response, Denny's emphasized that the class of employees
Rafferty sought to represent contains individuals who worked at
different locations, in different states, for different managers,
and in different working conditions. The decision noted that
Denny's operates 170 restaurant locations that are run by different
managers, with "sidework" that was at the base of Rafferty's claims
being assigned by each location's manager. The Court determined
that Rafferty failed to establish that she was similarly situated
to other Denny's servers across the U.S. because the putative class
members were subject to different policies and practices
established by different location managers.
Judge Graham's order denying conditional certification also stated
Rafferty had not shown a willingness from others to join the suit.
Despite the case pending for nearly a year, only 6 additional
servers filed consent forms to opt-in and that, along with
Rafferty, represent only 7 of Denny's 170 corporate-owned
restaurants.
Rafferty had previously filed her lawsuit in the Northern District
of Ohio in October 2018 but the Court ruled that because Denny's
was neither incorporated nor had its headquarters in Ohio,
Rafferty's class would be limited to only those servers working in
Ohio. The Court based its decision on the 2017 US Supreme Court
case Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., holding
that "exercising personal jurisdiction over Denny's for claims of
any out-of-state putative collective member would violate due
process." In response, Rafferty voluntarily dismissed her case and
re-filed in the Southern District of Florida.
This decision is essential for restaurants operating locations
nationwide, in multiple states and at multiple locations, as
different decision-makers relating to the allegedly unlawful
conduct, and variations in job duties, working conditions, and
policies at different locations, is a critical consideration in
defeating class certification.
The cases discussed are Rafferty v. Denny's Inc., Case No.
1:19-cv-24706 (S.D. Fl. Nov. 13, 2019) and Rafferty v. Denny's,
Inc., Docket No. 5:18-cv-02409 (N.D. Ohio Oct 17, 2018) [GN]
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft (NYSE: DB)
Class Period: November 7, 2017 to July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the U.S. Federal
Reserve had sharply criticized Deutsche Bank's U.S. operations in
an internal audit. The audit reportedly found that Deutsche Bank
had failed to address multiple concerns identified years earlier,
including concerns related to the bank's anti-money laundering
("AML") and other control procedures.
On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.31 per share, or 4.49%, to close at $6.60 per share on May 13,
2020.
Then, on July 7, 2020, the Federal Reserve's criticism of Deutsche
Bank's failure to address its AML and other issues was reaffirmed
when the New York State Department of Financial Services fined the
bank $150 million for neglecting to flag numerous questionable
transactions from accounts associated with sex-offender Jeffrey
Epstein and with two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME
Bank, both of which were the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct.
On this news, the value of Deutsche Bank's ordinary shares fell
$0.13 per share, or 1.31%, to close at $9.82 per share on July 7,
2020
The complaint, filed on July 15, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the bank's business, operational, and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Deutsche
Bank had failed to remediate deficiencies related to AML, its
disclosure controls, and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting, and its U.S. operations' troubled condition;
(ii) as a result, the bank failed to properly monitor customers
that the bank itself deemed to be high risk; (iii) the foregoing,
once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative
impact on the bank's financial results and reputation; and (iv) as
a result, the bank's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Deutsche Bank class action go to:
https://bespc.com/DB
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
DL THOMPSON LAW: Derosa Sues in New Jersey Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against DL THOMPSON LAW, PC.
The case is styled as Anthony Derosa, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. DL THOMPSON LAW, PC, Case No.
3:20-cv-12107-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
DL Thompson Law offers complete services to the financing
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
Rutherford, NJ 07070
Phone: (201) 507-6300
Email: lh@hershlegal.com
DOMINION ENERGY: Accord Resolving Ratepayers' Suit Wins Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion 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 the court handling the class action suit
initiated by Santee Cooper ratepayers has issued a final approval
of the settlement agreement.
In September 2017, a purported class action was filed by Santee
Cooper ratepayers against Santee Cooper, Dominion Energy South
Carolina, Inc. (DESC), Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and
Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. in the State Court of
Common Pleas in Hampton County, South Carolina (the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case).
The allegations are substantially similar to those in the DESC
Ratepayer Case. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the
defendants may not charge the purported class for reimbursement for
past or future costs of the NND Project.
In March 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint including
as additional named defendants, including certain then current and
former directors of Santee Cooper and SCANA. In June 2018, Santee
Cooper filed a Notice of Petition for Original Jurisdiction with
the Supreme Court of South Carolina. In December 2018, Santee
Cooper filed its answer to the plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint
and filed cross claims against DESC, which was denied.
In October 2019, Santee Cooper voluntarily consented to stay its
cross claims against DESC pending the outcome of the trial of the
underlying case. In November 2019, DESC removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. In December
2019, the plaintiffs and Santee Cooper filed a motion to remand the
case to state court. In January 2020, the case was remanded to
state court.
In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement relating
to this matter as well as the Luquire Case and the Glibowski Case.
The settlement agreement provides that Dominion Energy and Santee
Cooper will establish a fund for the benefit of class members in
the amount of $520 million, of which Dominion Energy's portion is
$320 million of shares of Dominion Energy common stock.
Also in March 2020, the court granted preliminary approval for the
settlement agreement.
In July 2020, the court issued a final approval of the settlement
agreement.
The settlement will become effective upon the expiration of a
30-day appellate period. This case is pending.
In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and
former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina (the Luquire Case). In August
2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed
from the case. The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper
Ratepayer Case. In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement
agreement as described above relating to this matter as well as the
Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case. This case will
be dismissed upon the effective date of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer
Case settlement. This case is pending.
In July 2019, a similar purported class action was filed by certain
Santee Cooper ratepayers against DESC, SCANA, Dominion Energy and
former directors and officers of SCANA in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Orangeburg, South Carolina (the Luquire Case). In August
2019, DESC, SCANA and Dominion Energy were voluntarily dismissed
from the case.
The claims are similar to the Santee Cooper Ratepayer Case. In
March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as
described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Glibowski Case.
This case will be dismissed upon the effective date of the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement. This case is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Employment-Related Action vs. SCANA Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion 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 SCANA Corporation continues to defend an
employment class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina.
In August 2017, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Carolina on behalf of persons who were formerly
employed at the NND Project. In July 2018, the court certified this
case as a class action.
In February 2019, certain of these plaintiffs filed an additional
case, which case has been dismissed and the plaintiffs have joined
the case filed August 2017.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that SCANA, DESC, Fluor
Corporation and Fluor Enterprises, Inc. violated the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in connection with the
decision to stop construction at the NND Project.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to provide
adequate advance written notice of their terminations of employment
and are seeking damages, which could be as much as $100 million for
100% of the NND Project.
In September 2018, a case was filed in the State Court of Common
Pleas in Fairfield County, South Carolina by Fluor Enterprises,
Inc. and Fluor Daniel Maintenance Services, Inc. against DESC and
Santee Cooper.
The plaintiffs make claims for indemnification, breach of contract
and promissory estoppel arising from, among other things, the
defendants' alleged failure and refusal to defend and indemnify the
Fluor defendants in the aforementioned case. These cases are
pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: RICO-Linked Suit to be Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Dominion 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 the class action suit alleging violation of The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), will be
dismissed upon the effective date of the Santee Cooper Ratepayer
Case settlement.
In January 2018, a purported class action was filed, and
subsequently amended, against SCANA, DESC and certain former
executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina (the Glibowski Case).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that SCANA Corporation
(SCANA), Dominion Energy South Carolina, Inc. (DESC) and the
individual defendants participated in an unlawful racketeering
enterprise in violation of The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and conspired to violate RICO by
fraudulently inflating utility bills to generate unlawful proceeds.
The DESC Ratepayer Class Action settlement contemplates dismissal
of claims by DESC ratepayers in this case against DESC, SCANA and
their officers.
In August 2019, the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss.
In March 2020, the parties executed a settlement agreement as
described above relating to this matter as well as the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case and the Luquire Case.
This case will be dismissed upon the effective date of the Santee
Cooper Ratepayer Case settlement. This case is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: SCANA Pays $32.5 Million
-----------------------------------------
Dominion 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 SCANA Corporation has paid the balance of $32.5
million in cash to satisfy the settlement in the consolidated
securities class action suit against it.
Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.
In September 2017, a purported class action was filed against SCANA
and certain former executive officers and directors in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina. Subsequent
additional purported class actions were separately filed against
all or nearly all of these defendants (collectively the SCANA
Securities Class Action).
In January 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina consolidated these suits, and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint in March 2018. The plaintiffs
allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that the individually named
defendants are liable under Section 20(a) of the same act.
In June 2018, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.
In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions
to dismiss.
In December 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which SCANA will pay $192.5 million, up to $32.5
million of which can be satisfied through the issuance of shares of
Dominion Energy common stock, subject to approval by the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.
In February 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement,
pending a fairness hearing.
In March 2020, SCANA funded an escrow account with $160 million in
cash and the balance of the settlement will be paid upon final
approval of the settlement by the court.
In July 2020, the court granted final approval of the settlement
agreement.
In August 2020, SCANA paid the balance of $32.5 million in cash to
satisfy the settlement.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
DOMINION ENERGY: Still Defends Consolidated South Carolina Litig.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion 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 the company continues to defend a consolidated
purported class action suit South Carolina.
Dominion Energy's acquisition of SCANA Corporation (SCANA) was
completed on January 1, 2019 pursuant to the terms of the SCANA
Merger Agreement, which was entered on January 2, 2018. The SCANA
Merger Approval Order (Final order) was issued by the South
Carolina Commission on December 21, 2018.
In January 2018, a purported class action was filed against SCANA,
Dominion Energy and certain former executive officers and directors
of SCANA in the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington County,
South Carolina (the City of Warren Lawsuit).
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by executing a merger
agreement that would unfairly deprive plaintiffs of the true value
of their SCANA stock, and that Dominion Energy aided and abetted
these actions. Among other remedies, the plaintiff seeks to enjoin
and/or rescind the merger.
In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In June 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Lexington
County.
Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with a similar appeal in the Metzler Lawsuit discussed
below.
In June 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
reversed the order remanding the case to state court.
In February 2018, a purported class action was filed against
Dominion Energy and certain former directors of SCANA and DESC in
the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland County, South Carolina
(the Metzler Lawsuit).
The allegations made and the relief sought by the plaintiffs are
substantially similar to that described for the City of Warren
Lawsuit.
In February 2018, Dominion Energy removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina, and filed a
Motion to Dismiss in March 2018. In August 2018, the case was
remanded back to the State Court of Common Pleas in Richland
County. Dominion Energy appealed the decision to remand to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the appeal was
consolidated with the City of Warren Lawsuit. In June 2019, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the order
remanding the case to state court.
In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of
South Carolina granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
City of Warren Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit. In October 2019,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against certain former
directors and executive officers of SCANA and DESC, which stated
substantially similar allegations to those in the City of Warren
Lawsuit and the Metzler Lawsuit as well as an inseparable fraud
claim.
In November 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In
April 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina denied the motion to dismiss. In May 2020, SCANA filed a
motion to intervene. This case is pending.
Dominion Energy, Inc., formerly Dominion Resources, Inc.,
incorporated on February 18, 1983, is a producer and transporter of
energy. Dominion is focused on its investment in regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution and regulated natural gas
transmission and distribution infrastructure. Dominion manages its
operations through three primary segments: Dominion Virginia Power
operating segment (DVP), Dominion Generation, Dominion Energy, and
Corporate and Other. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
ELECTROCORE INC: Appeal in Consolidated NJ Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, 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 plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of
the consolidated "Kuehl" and "Stone" action, proceeding under
Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19, is pending.
On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the
Company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court
of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs.
electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley
Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19,
respectively.
In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald &
Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for its
initial public offering (IPO); and two of the Company's
stockholders.
On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order
consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which are proceeding
under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a
co-lead plaintiff.
The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought
certification of a class of stockholders who purchased common stock
in the IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering.
The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with
respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for
the IPO.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
On October 31, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint or in the alternative to stay the action in favor of the
pending federal action. On February 21, 2020 the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
with prejudice.
On March 2, 2020 the court entered an amended order dismissing the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March 27, 2020,
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the N.J. Superior
Court-Appellate Division. The appeal was fully briefed as of July
17, 2020.
The date for argument of the appeal has not yet been set.
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELECTROCORE INC: Turnofsky Putative Class Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
electroCore, 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 putative
class action suit entitled, Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc.,
et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400.
On September 26, 2019 and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders
of the Company served putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned
Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400,
and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653,
respectively.
In addition to the Company, the defendants include present and past
directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the
underwriters for the initial public offering (IPO).
The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who
(i) purchased the Company's common stock in the IPO or whose
purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common
stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019.
The complaints each alleged that the defendants violated Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and
related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO
disclosures filed with the SEC.
The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.
In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019 several plaintiffs and
their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the
motion of Carole Tibbs and the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C. On
July 17, 2020 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Turnofsky.
In addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint adds an
additional director defendant and two investors as defendants, adds
a claim against the Company and the underwriters for violating
Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. The Priewe case was
voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in
these matters. However, in light of, among other things, the
preliminary stage of these litigation matters, the Company is
unable to determine the reasonable probability of loss or a range
of potential loss.
electroCore said, "Accordingly, the Company has not established an
accrual for potential losses, if any, that could result from any
unfavorable outcome, and there can be no assurance that these
litigation matters will not result in substantial defense costs
and/or judgements or settlements that could adversely affect the
Company's financial condition."
electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in
developing a range of patient administered non-invasive vagus nerve
(VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions
in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was
founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey.
ELKTON, OHIO: 6th Cir. Vacates Prelim. Injunction in Wilson Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CRAIG WILSON, ERIC BELLAMY, KENDAL NELSON, and
MAXIMINO NIEVES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Petitioners-Appellees, v. MARK WILLIAMS, in his official
capacity as Warden of Elkton Federal Correctional Institution;
MICHAEL CARVAJAL, in his official capacity as the Federal Bureau of
Prisons Director, Respondents-Appellants, Case No. 20-3447 (6th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated the
district court's April 22, 2020 preliminary injunction.
The COVID-19 virus is highly infectious and can be transmitted
easily from person to person. COVID-19 fatality rates increase
with age and underlying health conditions such as cardiovascular
disease, respiratory disease, diabetes, and immune compromise. If
contracted, COVID-19 can cause severe complications or death.
Because there is no current vaccine, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention ("CDC") recommends preventative measures to
decrease transmission such as physical distancing, mask wearing,
and increasing focus on personal hygiene such as additional hand
washing.
Elkton is a low-security prison in Lisbon, Ohio, designed to house
approximately 2,000 inmates at the main facility and 500 inmates at
the satellite facility. The main facility consists of three
buildings with six dormitory-style housing units; each unit holds
approximately 300 inmates split between two sides. The satellite
facility has two housing units, each with approximately 250
inmates. Each side of a housing unit contains approximately 150
bunks resulting in two to three inmates sharing a cube and sleeping
a few feet away from each other.
In response to the pandemic, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
began a phased approach nationwide. Phase One of its action plan
began in January 2020 and involved creating a strategic response
plan. On March 13, 2020, the BOP implemented Phase Two, which
suspended social and legal visits, inmate facility transfers, staff
travel and training, contractor access, and volunteer visits.
Elkton began implementing Phase Two health screening of arriving
inmates and staff for COVID-19 symptoms and risk factors on March
22.
Additionally, the BOP modified operations to maximize physical
distancing, including staggering meal and recreation times,
instating grab-and-go meals, and establishing quarantine and
isolation procedures. Phase Three involved inventorying the BOP's
cleaning, sanitation, and medical supplies. In Phase Four,
beginning on March 26, the BOP expanded its initial screening
procedures to mandate use of a screening tool and temperature
check, and require asymptomatic arrivals to be placed in quarantine
for fourteen days and symptomatic arrivals to be isolated until
they tested negative for COVID-19 or were cleared by medical
staff.
On March 31, the BOP implemented Phase Five. Phase Five required
all inmates to be secured to their quarters for a fourteen-day
period with limited access to the commissary, laundry, showers,
telephone, and other services. The BOP also coordinated with the
U.S. Marshals Service to decrease incoming arrivals during this
period. Phase Six, ordered on April 13, extended Phase Five through
May 18.
In addition to complying with nationwide directives, Elkton also
provided inmate and staff education through Frequently Asked
Questions bulletins, provided staff training on using Personal
Protective Equipment, ordered enhanced cleaning, and took other
preventative measures. Elkton also began, but quickly ended, daily
temperature screening of inmates. For inmates deemed to have
"essential" work details requiring movement throughout the
building, such as food service and cleaning orderlies, Elkton
implemented enhanced screening before and after assigned work
details. Inmates are encouraged to self-monitor and report
symptoms and are screened for symptoms and exposure to risk
factors.
The Petitioners, four inmates housed in the low-security Elkton
Federal Correctional Institution and its satellite facility FSL
Elkton, on behalf of themselves and others housed or to be housed
there, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 to obtain
release from custody to limit their exposure to the COVID-19 virus.
They sought to represent all current and future inmates, including
a subclass of inmates who -- through age and/or certain medical
conditions -- were particularly vulnerable to complications,
including death, if they contracted COVID-19.
The Petitioners, on behalf of themselves and current and future
inmates at Elkton, allege that their confinement in the midst of
the COVID-19 outbreak violates the Eighth Amendment. Specifically,
petitioners claim that there is no set of internal protocols or
practices that, in light of the current conditions and population
levels, Elkton can use that will prevent further disease and death
inside the prison. Therefore, the Petitioners sought class
certification and a preliminary injunction ordering the BOP to
identify and release all inmates ages fifty or older and those that
are medically vulnerable. Beyond the release of the initial
subclass, the Petitioners seek specific mitigation efforts to
prevent spread of COVID-19 within Elkton.
On April 22, 2020, the district court granted petitioners' motion
in part. The district court conditionally certified a
medically-vulnerable subclass and determined that the subclass was
likely to succeed on the merits of the Eighth Amendment claim. It
limited the subclass to inmates sixty-five and older and those with
medical conditions posing additional risk of severe harm from
COVID-19. Because the subclass consisted of hundreds of inmates
who were subject to the same dangerous conditions at Elkton and the
Petitioners have serious medical issues commensurate with the rest
of the subclass, the court held that petitioners met the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b).
Balancing the potential harms and public interest, the district
court also entered a preliminary injunction, directing Respondents
Mark Williams, Elkton's warden, and Michael Carvajal, the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"), to (1) evaluate each
subclass member's eligibility for transfer out of Elkton by any
means, including compassionate release, parole or community
supervision, transfer furlough, or non-transfer furlough within two
weeks; (2) transfer those deemed ineligible for compassionate
release to another BOP facility where testing is available and
physical distancing is possible; and (3) not allow those
transferred to return to Elkton until certain conditions were met.
On appeal, the BOP argues that (1) the district court lacked
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 and that the suit must
comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA"); (2) the
Petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of
their Eighth Amendment claim; and (3) the district court abused its
discretion in granting the injunction.
THe Sixth Circuit holds that jurisdiction was proper under Section
2241, although Section 2241 does not permit some of the relief the
Petitioners seek. However, because the district court erred in
concluding that petitioners have shown a likelihood of success on
the merits of their Eighth Amendment claim, the Sixth Circuit
concludes that the district court abused its discretion in granting
the preliminary injunction.
The Sixth Circuit finds that the Petitioners have not provided
sufficient evidence to show that the BOP was deliberately
indifferent to the serious risk of harm presented by COVID-19 at
Elkton. The conclusion is dispositive. The cases warn that a
court must not issue a preliminary injunction where the movant
presents no likelihood of merits success. The district court erred
in holding that the Petitioners had demonstrated a likelihood of
success on their Eighth Amendment claim.
Although the Petitioners' failure to demonstrate a likelihood of
success on the merits is dispositive, the Sixth Circuit briefly
notes that the district court's consideration of the other
preliminary injunction factors was incomplete. The district court
correctly noted that inmates at Elkton face a risk of irreparable
injury if they are infected by COVID-19. However, the district
court gave scant attention to the harms the BOP argued would result
from the injunction and ignored the Supreme Court's instruction
that the harm to the opposing party and the public interest factors
"merge when the Government is the opposing party. In granting a
preliminary injunction without adequately addressing the remaining
preliminary injunction factors, the district court abused its
discretion.
Because petitioners have not shown a likelihood of success on the
merits of their Eighth Amendment claim, the district court abused
its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The Sixth
Circuit accordingly vacated the district court's April 22, 2020
preliminary injunction.
A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/TVlEFX from Leagle.com.
ARGUED: Sarah Carroll, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for
Appellants.
David J. Carey, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, for
Appellees.
ON BRIEF: Sarah Carroll, Abby C. Wright, Casen B. Ross, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, for Appellants.
David J. Carey, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Columbus, Ohio, Joseph
Mead, Freda J. Levenson, ACLU OF OHIO FOUNDATION, Cleveland, Ohio,
David A. Singleton, Mark A. Vander Laan, Michael L. Zuckerman ,
OHIO JUSTICE & POLICY CENTER, Cincinnati, Ohio, Kirti Datla --
kirti.datla@hoganlovells.com -- HOGANS LOVELLS US LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellees.
Laura Osseck, DISABILITY RIGHTS OHIO, Columbus, Ohio, Subodh
Chandra -- Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com -- THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM
LLC, Cleveland, Ohio, for Amici Curiae.
EPPING GARDENS: Grieving Daughters Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
9News reports that grappling with grief in a pandemic is hard
enough, with just 10 mourners permitted in a quiet room under
Victoria's lockdown restrictions and other loved ones made to watch
online.
But dealing with anger at the system that failed a beloved family
member is something else.
Kathleen Gribble lived at Epping Gardens in Melbourne, where almost
every aged care resident is now infected with COVID-19.
Her daughters Lisa and Nicole told 9News of their devastation and
fury over the outbreak which led to the passing of their mother.
"I'm angry, this should never have happened, I mean our mum was
only 75, she had many years ahead of her," Nicole said.
Kathleen's death is one of 243 in aged care since the pandemic
started, including 12 overnight -- three men in their 70s, four
women and a man in their 80s and three women and a man in their
90s.
On this day of heartbreak, amid tears, Nicole and Lisa are calling
for the buck passing from federal and state governments to stop and
for Epping Gardens to be held to account for the death of their mum
and at least 20 others.
"We don't care about your political grandstanding, we don't care
about whether it's a state or federal, talk to each other, sort it
out -- do not let this happen to anybody else," Nicole said.
"Every single one of those is another family, another family like
us having to do this what we're doing today," Lisa added.
Kathleen's family will join the class action against Epping
Gardens. Among the claims is a communication breakdown that saw the
facility's management call to say Ms Gribble was doing ok -- and
then 20 minutes later her geriatrician said she wasn't going to
make it.
"So in the space of 20 minutes I'd gone from ok this isn't so bad,
she'll be ok, to basically talking about, you know, she's going to
die," Nicole said.
"I was devastated the communication has just been absolutely
appalling."
Kathleen will be remembered as a woman who always put her family
first.
Her daughters say they'll now be fighting for her.
"No one should have to bury their mum the way we're doing this
today -- without her family, without her friends. This is no way to
finish a life," Lisa said. [GN]
ETRADE: Faces Class Action Over Negative U.S. Oil Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Celeste Skinner, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that when US
oil prices went negative for the first time in history back in
April of this year, traders and brokers alike were caught off
guard. In recent days, a class action lawsuit has been filed
against E*Trade, based on accusations that the brokerage did not
adequately warn investors of the risk.
The lawsuit seen by Finance Magnates was filed on Aug. 18 in the
Northern District Court of California. The document alleged that
E*Trade did not adequately warn investors of risks by advising
clients that prices could turn negative and failed to properly test
its online trading platform for the possibility of negative oil
futures.
Negative oil prices led to hundreds of millions of dollars in
losses, not only in the United States but across the whole
industry. Clients of E*Trade alone lost hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
"In offering trading services, E*TRADE assumed a duty to ensure
that its systems were sufficiently equipped to reliably deliver
such services under foreseeable customer demands and market
conditions, such as those that occurred on April 20, 2020," the
lawsuit filed by Kabateck LLP, Girard Bengali APC and Actium LLP
said.
"Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class understood and
reasonably believed that E*TRADE had or would take such steps, but
it did not. E*TRADE failed to adequately or properly equip itself
technologically and systemically to maintain Plaintiffs and class
members' access to trading services.
"Due solely to its own negligence and failure to maintain an
adequate infrastructure, E*TRADE breached obligations owed to
Plaintiffs and class members and caused them substantial losses.
Its failures are all the more serious due to the magnitude of the
Outage, the absence of alternative means for customers to protect
their investments, and the lack of communication and customer
support."
Lawsuit Claims E*Trade Knew of Possible Negative Prices
The lawsuit also alleges that E*Trade had knowledge of the
possibility of oil prices turning negative for weeks and still did
not test its system. Furthermore, the plaintiffs accused the US
brokerage's platform of suffering an outage, which failed to show
the accurate price of crude oil futures contracts for e-mini
futures when the spot price fell below zero.
The lawsuit was filed against E*Trade Securities, LLC, and E*Trade
Futures, LLC. The document alleges breach of contract, breach of
the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, gross
negligence and unlawful competition law claim. [GN]
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Stueve Siegel Appeals Ruling in Reyes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenors STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LP and ROBINSON
CALCAGNIE, INC., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit entitled Demeta Reyes v. Experian Information Solutions,
Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00563-SVW-AFM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa
Ana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Judge Andrew
Guilford certified a class of consumers whose reporting by Experian
was allegedly "misleading" after a loan servicer went out of
business.
Delbert Services Corporation ("Delbert") was a servicer for
internet loans issued by Western Sky Financial, LLC. In January
2015, Delbert went out of business and told Experian that it wanted
to "discontinue use of any and all services provided by Experian."
Experian responded that it had deleted all Delbert loans from its
database. In reality, however, Experian continued to report the
loans until April 2016.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff Demeta Reyes alleged a single claim for
relief under the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970 ("FCRA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. Specifically, she asserted that Experian
willfully failed to "follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information" contained in her credit
report.
The appellate case is captioned as Demeta Reyes, et al. v. Experian
Information Solutions, Case No. 20-55909, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Transcript shall be ordered by September 28, 2020;
-- Transcript is due on October 27, 2020;
-- Appellants Robinson Calcagnie, Inc. and Stueve Siegel
Hanson LP's opening brief is due on December 7, 2020;
-- Appellee Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s answering
brief is due on January 7, 2021;
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Proposed Intervenors-Appellants STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LP and
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. are represented by:
Norman Siegel, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Daniel Robinson, Esq.
ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 720-1288
Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
E-mail: drobinson@robinsonfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is
represented by:
Ryan Ball, Esq.
Ann Theresa Rossum, Esq.
John A. Vogt, Esq.
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612-4408
Telephone: (949) 553-7515
E-mail: rball@jonesday.com
atrossum@jonesday.com
javogt@jonesday.com
- and -
Adam W. Wiers, Esq.
JONES DAY
77 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 782-3939
Facsimile: (312) 782-3939
E-mail: awwiers@jonesday.com
FASTLY INC: Betancourt Sues Over Decline in Common Stock Value
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCOS BETANCOURT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FASTLY, INC., JOSHUA BIXBY, and ADRIEL LARES,
Case No. 3:20-cv-06024 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 27, 2020), alleges that the
Defendants filed false and misleading statements in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and resulted in the decline of
the Company's common stock value.
The Plaintiff has allegedly purchased Fastly common stock at
artificially inflated prices.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants submitted false and
misleading statements with Securities and Exchange Commission when
they filed their quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2020, which was signed by Defendants Bixby and Lares.
Allegedly, the Defendants failed to disclose that Fastly's main
customer was ByteDance, operator of Tiktok, which was known to have
serious security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S.
officials.
As a result of the omission of material information regarding
ByteDance's status, Fastly's common stock declined, thereby,
causing harm to investors, including the Plaintiff.
Fastly, Inc., provides edge cloud platform, which enables customers
to create great digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably
by processing, serving, and securing customers' applications as
close to their end-users as possible. Joshua Bixby was Fastly's
Chief Executive Officer. Adriel Lares was Fastly's Chief Financial
Officer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1470
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Tel: 424-256-2884
Fax: 424-256-2885
Email: bheikali@faruqilaw.com
- and –
Richard W. Gonnello, Esq.
Katherine M. Lenahan, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212-983-9330
Fax: 212-983-9331
Emails: rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
klenahan@faruqilaw.com
FIRST FINANCIAL: FDCPA & UCSPA Classes Certified in Lawrence Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CRYSTAL LAWRENCE, On behalf of
Plaintiff and Class, v. FIRST FINANCIAL INVESTMENT FUND V, LLC,
Case No. 2:19-cv-00174-RJS-CMR (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Robert J.
Shelby entered an order:
1. certifying the following classes:
a. The Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCPA) Class shall
consisting of all individuals against whom First
Financial filed a debt collection lawsuit in Utah to
collect a "debt" as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1692a(5),
while First Financial was unlicensed as a debt
collector in Utah, and where the lawsuit was filed
within the one year period immediately preceding
February 5, 2019"; and
b. The Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA) Class
shall consist of all individuals against whom First
Financial filed a debt collection lawsuit in Utah to
collect a debt incurred in connection with a "consumer
transaction" as defined by Utah Code Ann. section 13-
11-3(2), while First Financial was unlicensed as a debt
collector in Utah, and where the lawsuit was filed
within the four (4) year period immediately preceding
February 5, 2019."
2. certifying the following issue for each class:
Did First Financial violate the FDCPA and/or the UCSPA
when it filed debt collection lawsuits against the
class members without being licensed as a debt
collector under Utah Code Ann. section 12-1-1?
3. appointing Scott Borison, Tyler B. Ayres, and Daniel
Baczynski as class counsel;
4. appointing Lawrence as the class representative of the
FDCPA Class and the UCSPA Class; and
5. directing the parties to meet and confer concerning the
form of the notice to be sent to the class members
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2);
6. directing the parties to provide the court with a
stipulated notice or the parties' proposed notices,
including supporting memoranda, no later than 30 days
after entry of this Order.
Lawrence has satisfied the requirements under Rule 23 and is
therefore entitled to certification of her proposed classes, the
Court says.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA and
UCSPA by pursuing judgments on defaulted debts without registering
as a debt collector in Utah. After Ms. Lawrence defaulted on a
medical debt, First Financial acquired her account and filed a debt
collection action against her.
First Financial purchases defaulted third-party debts and then
pursues collection of those debts for its own benefit.[CC]
FIRST HORIZON: Searles Suit v. Capital Bank Financial Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National Corporation (FHN) 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
against Capital Bank Financial Corp., entitled, Searles v.
DeMartini et al., remains pending.
In the first quarter of 2020, a former shareholder of Capital Bank
Financial Corp. ("CBF") filed a putative class action suit, Searles
v. DeMartini et al, No. 2020-0136 (Del. Chancery), against certain
former directors, officers, and shareholders of CBF, alleging,
among other things, that defendants breached certain fiduciary
duties in connection with CBF's merger with FHN in 2017.
Plaintiff claims unspecified damages related to the merger
consideration and opportunity loss.
FHN is unable to estimate an reasonably possible loss ("RPL") range
for this matter due to significant uncertainties regarding: whether
a class will be certified and, if so, the composition of the class;
the amount of potential damages that might be awarded, if any; of
any such damages amount, the amount that FHN would be obliged to
indemnify; the availability of applicable insurance; and the
outcome of discovery, which has not yet begun.
First Horizon National Corporation ("FHN") began as a community
bank chartered in 1864 and as of June 30, 2017, was one of the 40
largest publicly traded banking organizations in the United States
in terms of asset size. The company is based in Memphis,
Tennessee.
FIRSTENERGY CORP: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (BAYRY)
Class Period: 5/23/2016 - 3/19/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-bayer-aktiengesellschaft-american-depositary-shares-securities-litigation
FirstEnergy Corp. (FE)
Class Period: 2/21/2017 - 7/21/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: September 28, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-firstenergy-corp-securities-litigation
Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (COG)
Class Period: 10/23/2015 - 6/12/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: October 13, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-cabot-oil-amp-gas-corporation-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Klein Law Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Klein Law Firm on Aug. 23 announced that a class action
complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of FirstEnergy
Corp. 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.
FirstEnergy Corp. (NYSE:FE)
Class Period: February 21, 2017 - July 21, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
FirstEnergy Corp. allegedly made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the legislative
"solutions" that defendants claimed would resolve problems with the
Company's nuclear facilities were centered on an illicit campaign
to corrupt high-profile state legislators and thus secure
legislation favoring the FirstEnergy; (2) over roughly three years,
FirstEnergy and its affiliates funneled more than $60 million to
prominent state politicians and lobbyists, including Ohio Speaker
Larry Householder, in order to secure the passage of Ohio House
Bill 6, which provided a $1.3 billion ratepayer-funded bailout to
keep the Company's failing nuclear facilities in operation; (3)
defendants falsely represented that they were complying with state
and federal laws and regulations regarding regulatory matters
throughout the Class Period, exposing the Company and its investors
to the extreme risks of reputational, legal, and financial harm;
(4) as a result of defendants' false statements and omissions,
FirstEnergy insiders were able to sell more than $17 million worth
of their FirstEnergy shares at artificially inflated prices.
Learn about your recoverable losses in FE:
http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/firstenergy-corp-loss-submission-form?id=8760&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.
CONTACT:
J. Klein, Esq.
Empire State Building
350 Fifth Avenue
59th Floor
New York, NY 10118
jk@kleinstocklaw.com
Telephone: (212) 616-4899
Fax: (347) 558-9665
www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN]
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Barry Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource
Advantage, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph G. Barry,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05128 (N.D. Ill., Aug.
31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Firstsource Advantage is a collections service provider
headquartered in Amherst, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Victor Thomas Metroff, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com
FLEX LTD: Dec. 3 Hearing Set on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Flex Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 26,
2020, that the hearing on the motion to dismiss putative class
action suit pending before the Northern District of California has
been set for December 3, 2020.
On May 8, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain officers
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder,
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
financial results, press releases and SEC filings made during the
putative class period of January 26, 2017 through April 26, 2018.
On October 1, 2018, the Court appointed lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel in the case.
On November 28, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
alleging misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, press releases,
earnings calls, and analyst and investor conferences and expanding
the putative class period through October 25, 2018.
On April 3, 2019, the Court vacated its prior order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel and reopened the lead
plaintiff appointment process. On September 26, 2019, the Court
appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel in the
case. On November 8, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint. On December 4, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
On May 29, 2020, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and gave lead plaintiff 30 days to amend. On June
29, 2020, lead plaintiff filed a further amended complaint.
On July 27, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. Defendants' motion to dismiss is set for hearing on
December 3, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend this case.
Flex Ltd. provides design, engineering, manufacturing, and supply
chain services and solutions to original equipment manufacturers
worldwide. It operates through High Reliability Solutions,
Industrial and Emerging Industries, Communications & Enterprise
Compute, and Consumer Technologies Group segments. The company was
formerly known as Flextronics International Ltd. and changed its
name to Flex Ltd. in September 2016. Flex Ltd. was founded in 1990
and is based in Singapore.
FLINT, MI: Settles Tainted Water Class Action for $600 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crain's Detroit Business reports that Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and
Attorney General Dana Nessel have agreed to a historic $600 million
settlement with Flint residents over state government's role in
Flint's disastrous lead-tainted water crisis. Whitmer, Nessel and
law firms representing Flint residents in a class action lawsuit
announced the settlement on Aug. 20, a landmark agreement more than
six years after Flint switched from Detroit's Lake Huron-fed water
system to using the Flint River for its drinking water to save
money while under the control of state emergency manager.
Why it matters: Flint's water switch -- predicated on saving money
while the city was being run by state-appointed emergency managers
-- is blamed for causing toxic lead in aging water pipes to leach
into the city's drinking water after state environmental officials
did not require Flint's public works department to add corrosion
control chemicals to the water. [GN]
FMC CORPORATION: Bisser Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------
FMC 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 motion to dismissed filed in Bisser Nikolov
v. Livent Corp., et al., has been granted.
On October 18, 2019, purported stockholders of Livent amended a
putative class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to add FMC Corporation as
a defendant.
The operative complaint in that case, Bisser Nikolov v. Livent
Corp., et al. makes similar substantive allegations as the state
court case, including alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2),
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages
and other relief on behalf of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Livent common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the Livent IPO offering documents.
Pursuant to a stipulated scheduling order, Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Nikolov case on November 18, 2019. Plaintiffs
filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 30,
2019.
n July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss and dismissed the federal complaint in its entirety.
FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FMC CORPORATION: Livent Corp. Securities Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
FMC 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 consolidated
suit entitled, In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
190501229.
On May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the company's former
subsidiary Livent Corporation ("Livent") filed a putative class
action complaint in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, in connection with Livent's October 2018
initial public offering (the "Livent IPO").
The complaint in this case, Plymouth County Retirement Association
v. Livent Corp., et al., named as defendants Livent, certain of its
current and former executives and directors, FMC Corporation, and
underwriters involved in the Livent IPO ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges generally that the offering documents for the
Livent IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information
related to Livent's business and prospects. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of
all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Livent
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Livent IPO offering
documents.
On July 2, 2019, Defendants moved to stay the Plymouth County
action, in favor of two similar putative class actions relating to
the Livent IPO, in which FMC had not been named as a Defendant,
which are pending in the United States District Court of the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On July 18, 2019, a separate state action was filed against the
same Defendants in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Bizzaria v. Livent Corp., et al. On July 26,
2019, Plymouth County filed an amended complaint in its state court
case.
On September 23, 2019, the actions were consolidated under the
caption In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
190501229.
On October 11, 2019, Defendants filed preliminary objections
seeking to dismiss the case in its entirety. On October 22, 2019,
the Court denied Defendants' motion to stay the case, but granted a
separate motion of the Defendants to stay all discovery. On June
29, 2020, the court overruled the preliminary objections filed by
the Defendants.
FMC Corporation is a diversified chemical company serving
agricultural, consumer and industrial markets globally with
innovative solutions, applications and market-leading products. The
company is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
FRONTIER AIRLINES: Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Airelle Emmett, writing for Air Space, reports that two
class-action lawsuits filed in December 2019 against Frontier
Airlines demonstrate how the industry's barriers to entry overlap.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with ACLU Colorado
and the law firm Holwell Shuster & Goldberg, LLP filed the
lawsuits: one on behalf of four women pilots; the other, for four
flight attendants at Frontier, alleging the carrier had
systematically denied employees accommodations for pregnancy and
breastfeeding. The lawsuits further claimed that the airline's
policies had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, by forcing pregnant employees
into unpaid leave at 32 weeks, while pilots temporarily unable to
fly because of other medical conditions were reassigned to ground
duties. Both groups said their requests for private and sanitary
accommodations for nursing were ignored or denied and that the
airline had banned pumping while on duty. Theirs was the first
lawsuit of its kind filed against a U.S. airline.
Frontier has vigorously denied the allegations. But it was not the
first time female pilots have made demands related to pregnancy,
lactation, and unpaid leave. In 2016, for example, Delta pilots
successfully lobbied their mostly male union to support paid
maternity leave. [GN]
GABLES RESIDENTIAL: Faces Katt ADA Suit in District of Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gables Residential
Services, Inc. The case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Gables Residential
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02636-WJM (D. Colo., Aug. 31,
2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Gables Residential Services, Inc., operates as a real estate firm.
The Company specializes in the development, construction,
ownership, acquisition, financing, and management of multifamily
and mixed-use communities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
GENERALI US: Swafford Seeks Refund for Trip Cancelled Over COVID
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARK SWAFFORD, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. GENERALI US BRANCH and GENERALI GLOBAL ASSISTANCE, INC.
d/b/a CSA TRAVEL PROTECTION, Case No. 1:20-cv-07079 (S.D.N.Y., Aug.
31, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who paid for and
obtained a travel protection insurance policy from the Defendants,
and who had their claim for travel reimbursements due to
COVID-19-related cancellations, delays, or interruptions denied.
On February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff booked travel to Hawaii,
including a seven-night stay at a rental home initially scheduled
to start on June 2, 2020, and end on June 9, 2020, but ultimately
rescheduled by the Plaintiff to start on June 9 and end on June 16,
2020. At that same time, the Plaintiff applied for and was issued a
travel protection insurance policy, pursuant to which the
Defendants agreed to, among other things, reimburse him for costs
associated with the cancellation or delay of the trip.
Prior to the Trip, COVID-19 and governmental orders issued in
connection therewith forced the Plaintiff to cancel his trip. As a
result of that cancellation, the Plaintiff says he incurred certain
costs, including all payments made for the trip, for which he made
a claim under the policy.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed and refused to
honor their contractual obligations to reimburse the Plaintiff for
the costs incurred due to the cancellation of his trip, in
contradiction of the plain terms and conditions of the policy. The
Defendants have--on a uniform basis--failed and refused to
reimburse their insureds under the policies for forfeited, prepaid,
non-refundable, non-refunded, and unused payments incurred as a
result of the cancellation, and/or delay of trips due to COVID-19
and/or associated governmental orders.
Established in 1935, Generali US Branch is licensed as a domestic
insurance/reinsurance company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 223-6334
Facsimile: (212) 223-6444
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
- and -
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
GENIUS BRANDS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug. 23 announced that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020
Allegations against UCO include that: (1) decreased demand for oil
due to the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had
caused extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of
investor capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars, in a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies,
heightened illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI")
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself); (3) there was a sharp
divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets,
leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in
Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the
excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract. As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the
passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark.
Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020
According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.
Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020
Allegations against STAA include that: the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
GOOGLE INC: Faces Antitrust Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
Jeet, writing for Gizmochina, reports that Google has been hit with
a class-action antitrust lawsuit which alleges that the search
engine giant is participating in anti-competitive practices,
including exclusionary behavior associated with a 30 percent fee on
Play Store transactions.
The complaint against the company comes on the heels of lawsuits
filed by Epic Games against Apple and Google for removing its
online game Fortnite from their respective app marketplaces for
violating guidelines.
The new class-action lawsuit against Google talks about "ongoing
abuse of its market power, including the exclusion of competition,
the stifling of innovation, the inhibition of consumer choice, and
Google's imposition on app developers of a 30% transaction fee."
It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California. It states that Google has engaged in rampant
antitrust behavior, including anti-competitive contracts, strategic
abuses of its dominance in other Android apps. It also lists the
exploitation of deficits in consumer knowledge, and the cultivation
and exploitation of malware fears to promote its own apps
marketplace Play Store.
It also states that Google has improperly attained and maintained a
monopoly in the United States market for Android OS distribution
services as well as in-app product payment processing services.
The lawsuit seeks to recoup losses suffered by Android app
developers for the monetary injuries they have suffered due to
Google's anti-competitive monopoly in the distribution and payment
processing the plaintiff has identified. The suit also seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief against Google for its violation of
federal antitrust laws.
Both Google and Apple are under the scanner for potential
anti-competitive practices. However, Apple has lately been under
scrutiny for unfair App Store policies and preferential treatment
to select developers and companies. [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Privacy Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE GOOGLE REFERRER HEADER PRIVACY LITIGATION, Case
No. 10-cv-04809-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint for lack of standing.
The case is a class action concerning Google's alleged disclosure
of users' search terms to third party servers; it was originally
settled in 2013. Google operates an Internet search engine, which
allows users to search for websites based on a query of keywords or
phrases. Upon a search, Google displays the search results as a
list of hyperlinks to the relevant websites; the user may click on
a link to travel to the desired site.
The Plaintiffs allege that when a user clicks on a search result,
Google transmits the user's search terms to the third-party server
that hosts the website the user seeks to view. That is because the
Uniform Resource Locator ("URL") used to direct the user to the
requested website contains the URL of the last site the user
visited -- i.e., the page that "referred" them to the requested
website; this information is known is as the "referrer header."
Believing that the disclosure of search terms to third parties
violates users' statutory and contractual privacy rights, Named
Plaintiff Paloma Gaos filed the original Complaint in October 2010.
The case was assigned to Judge Davila in April 2011, and Plaintiff
Gaos filed the First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in May 2011. The
FAC contains one federal claim for violation of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"), and six state law claims for
fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, public
disclosure of private facts, actual and constructive fraud under
Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1572, 1573, breach of contract, and unjust
enrichment.
In May 2011, the Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). As
relevant to the instant dispute, the Defendant argued that
Plaintiff Gaos lacked standing to bring any of the claims in the
FAC.
The Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. First,
the Court found that Plaintiff Gaos had failed ton adequately plead
standing to bring her six state law claims and dismissed those
claims with leave to amend. On the other hand, Gaos's federal
claim alleged a violation of her rights under Title II of the ECPA,
which is the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"). The Court rejected
the Defendant's contention that Plaintiff Gaos had not adequately
alleged an injury in fact, as necessary for Article III standing.
In an effort to cure the standing deficiencies as to the state law
claims, Gaos and an additional named Plaintiff (Anthony Italiano)
filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC also contained
new factual allegations that in October 2011, Google changed its
practice regarding referrer headers. According to the SAC,
Google's new practice was to "scrub" search terms from the referrer
headers on "regular, organic search results" when users are logged
into a Google service; however, Google would continue to include
search terms in referrer headers when users click on "paid links or
advertisements." Thus, in the Plaintiffs' view, Google is now
effectively selling search queries to paying advertisers.
The Defendant again moved to dismiss the SAC for lack of Article
III standing. Then, before the Court made its ruling on the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the SAC, the parties stipulated to
the consolidation of Gaos and Italiano's case with another class
action, and the Plaintiffs filed the now-operative Consolidated
Complaint. The motion to dismiss the SAC was therefore terminated
as moot.
Shortly thereafter, in July 2013, the parties reached a class-wide
settlement. The settlement agreement provided, among other things,
that the Defendant would pay a settlement amount of $8.5 million,
none of which would be distributed to absent class members; rather,
any funds not used for costs, attorney's fees, and incentive
payments would be distributed to six cy pres recipients. The Court
granted preliminary and then final approval of the settlement, over
the objections of five class members. Two of the objectors
appealed the settlement to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the
propriety of cy pres relief as well as the selection of the cy pres
recipients. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court's approval of the
settlement.
Undeterred, the objectors petitioned for certiorari before the U.S.
Supreme Court, and their petition was granted. Instead of reaching
the merits of the cy pres issues, however, the Supreme Court
identified a potential threshold obstacle: In 2016, while the
objectors' Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, the Supreme Court had
issued its opinion in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
The Supreme Court explained that Spokeo abrogated the ruling in
Edwards that the violation of a statutory right automatically
satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute
authorizes a person to sue to vindicate that right. But because
Google withdrew its standing challenge after we dismissed Edwards
as improvidently granted, neither the District Court nor the Ninth
Circuit ever opined on whether any named plaintiff sufficiently
alleged standing in the operative complaint. As the Court lacked
power to approve the proposed class settlement if no named
plaintiff had standing, the Supreme Court concluded that the Court
should address the Plaintiffs' standing in light of Spokeo in order
to assure its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court therefore vacated
the judgment and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit, which
remanded the case to the Court.
In accordance with the Supreme Court's order, the Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss the operative Consolidated Complaint for lack of
standing on March 20, 2020. The operative pleading is the
Consolidated Complaint, which contains six claims: (1) violation of
the ECPA; (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (4) breach of contract implied in law;
(5) unjust enrichment; (6) declaratory judgment and corresponding
injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201-2202.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs lack Article III
standing to bring any of these claims. Specifically, their motion
concerns the injury in fact element; it does not contest causation
or redressability.
First, Judge Davila considers whether the Plaintiffs have standing
to assert Count 1, i.e., that Google violated Title II of the ECPA,
18 U.S.C. Section 2702(a). He finds that, as with the provisions
of ECPA considered in Campbell v. Facebook, Inc. and In re
Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking Litig., 18 U.S.C. Section 2702
guards against invasions of concrete privacy interests such that
every violation thereof causes concrete harm. The Plaintiffs have
therefore pleaded a concrete injury by claiming that Google
violated 18 U.S.C. Section 2702 when it disclosed their search
terms to third parties without authorization. Having confirmed
that the Plaintiffs have claimed the invasion of their concrete
legal rights under the ECPA, the Judge finds that they have
standing to pursue Count 1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss
Count 1 is therefore denied.
Next, Judge Davila considers Counts 2 and 3, which are breach of
contract claims brought under California law. Both claims allege
that Google breached its Terms of Service by transmitting the
Plaintiffs' search terms to third parties through referrer headers.
Specifically, Count 2 alleges a breach of express terms in the
Terms of Service, which allegedly included promises not to disclose
users' "web history" and other "personal information" except under
specified circumstances. Count 3 alleges a breach of the covenant
of good faith and fair dealing, which, under California law, is
implied into every contract. The Defendant argues that the
Plaintiffs have not pleaded the injury in fact necessary to pursue
these breach of contract claims.
The Judge agrees with the Plaintiffs that under California law, the
failure to perform a duty required by contract is a legal wrong,
independently of actual damage sustained by the party to whom
performance is due. Thus, a breach of contract claim accrues at
the moment of breach and the injury, for standing purposes, is the
breach itself. The Plaintiffs allege that Google breached that
duty by sending their search terms to third parties via referrer
headers. The Plaintiffs have identified a concrete contractual
duty that was allegedly owed to them and that was breached by the
Defendant; that suffices to demonstrate injury in fact at the
pleading stage. The Defendant's motion to dismiss Counts 2 and 3
for lack of standing is denied.
The Counts 4 and 5 are quasi-contract claims: Count 4 alleges a
claim for breach of implied-in-law contract and Count 5 alleges, in
the alternative, a claim for unjust enrichment. The gravamen of
both is that Google has "increased its revenues and profits" by
sharing its users' search queries third parties without their
consent.
The Plaintiffs in the case have, in like manner, adequately
demonstrated their entitlement to unjustly earned profits. The
Consolidated Complaint plausibly pleads that receiving search terms
in referrer headers is one of the services that Google offers its
advertisers, and that Google thus profits from the disclosure of
Plaintiffs' search terms. The Plaintiffs have also shown that they
"retain a stake in the profits garnered" from their search terms in
that the search terms were disclosed without the Plaintiffs'
consent and in spite of Google's promises to the contrary. The
Judge therefore concludes that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged a state law interest whose violation constitutes an injury
sufficient to establish standing. The Defendant's motion to
dismiss Counts 4 and 5 is denied.
The Consolidated Complaint seeks, in addition to damages, to enjoin
the Defendant's practice of transmitting search terms in referrer
headers. A plaintiff must demonstrate constitutional standing
separately for each form of relief requested. For injunctive
relief, which is a prospective remedy, the Plaintiffs must show
either continuing, present adverse effects due to their exposure to
Google' past illegal conduct or a sufficient likelihood that they
will again be wronged in a similar way. However, the Defendant
does not specifically argue that the Plaintiffs lack standing for
injunctive relief, nor does it suggest that it has ceased the
practices giving rise to the Plaintiffs' claims. The Judge
therefore sees no obstacle to the Plaintiffs' standing to seek
injunctive relief.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Davila concludes that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing injury in fact as
to each of their claims for relief. Accordingly, the Judge denied
the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint for
lack of standing.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/DJFXA7 from Leagle.com.
GOSSAMER BIO: Kuhne Putative Class Action Ongoing in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gossamer Bio, 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 putative
class action suit initiated by Scott Kuhne.
On April 3, 2020, Scott Kuhne, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company, certain of its executive officers and
directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering
(IPO) in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California (Case No. 3:20-cv-00649-DMS-MDD).
The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 8,
2019 and December 13, 2019. The complaint alleges that the Company,
certain of its executive officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its IPO made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b)
(and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and
other unspecified equitable relief.
The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.
Gossamer said, "Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on the
merits, the Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."
Gossamer Bio, Inc. operates as a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company focuses on discovering, acquiring, and developing
therapeutics in the disease areas of immunology, inflammation, and
oncology. Gossamer Bio serves customers in the United States. The
company is based in San Diego, California.
GREENLANE HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss IPO Class Suits Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Greenlane 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 motions to dismiss the securities class
action suits related to the company's initial public offering (IPO)
remains pending.
On August 2, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, officers and
directors of the Company, and the underwriters for related to the
Company's initial public offering.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's
registration statement related to its initial public offering
included untrue statements of material fact and, or omitted to
state material facts necessary to make the statements in the
registration statement not misleading, in violation of Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Since August 2, four additional purported class action lawsuits
have been filed making substantially similar allegations. At this
time, the class has not been certified and the Company cannot
estimate the amount of damages (if any) being sought by the
plaintiffs.
Three of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as
described above were filed against the Company in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida.
These cases have been consolidated under the caption In re
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
50-2019-CA-010026).
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 9, 2019 and
the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 7, 2020. A ruling
on the motion to dismiss is pending.
Two of the complaints alleging violations of securities laws as
described above were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida. These cases
have been consolidated under the caption In re Greenlane Holdings,
Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 19-CV-81259). The plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 6, 2020 and the Company filed a
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2020. A ruling on the motion to
dismiss is pending.
Greenlane Holdings, Inc. distributes consumption accessories and
vaporization products to wholesale and retail customers in the
United States and Canada. The company offers vaporizers and parts,
cleaning products, grinders and storage containers, pipes, rolling
papers, and customized lines of specialty packaging. It also
operates e-commerce Websites, such as VaporNation.com and
VapeWorld.com. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered
in Boca Raton, Florida.
GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 19 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Guidewire
Software, Inc. 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.
Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE)
GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 -
March 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8687&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's
transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's
cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs
and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed
transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional
on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue
guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly
increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was
baseless and unattainable.
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]
HAMILTON BEACH: Stockholder Class Suit Underway in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamilton Beach Brands Holding 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 company continues to defend a
class action suit initiated by a company stockholder.
On May 21, 2020 an owner of the company's (HBBHC) class A common
stock filed a class action complaint against HBBHC and the
Company's Chief Executive and Chief Financial officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of investors
who acquired HBBHC common stock between February 27, 2020 and May
8, 2020.
The claims pertain to the accounting irregularities involving a
Mexican subsidiary of the Company that were announced in the Form
12b-25 filed by the Company on May 8, 2020.
The Company believes that the claims are without merit and will
vigorously defend against the claims.
Hamilton Beach Brands Holding Company is an operating holding
company for Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. a designer, marketer and
distributor of branded small electric household and specialty
housewares appliances, as well as commercial products for
restaurants, fast food chains, bars and hotels. The company is
based in Glen Allen, Virginia.
HAYT & HAYT: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Barenbaum Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL BARENBAUM, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HAYT, HAYT &
LANDAU, LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-04120-BMS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge
Berle M. Schiller entered an order on Aug. 17, 2020:
1. certifying the Settlement Class as:
"all consumers residing in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania who received a 'Notice of Deposition in Aid
of Execution' from the Defendant on an obligation owed or
allegedly owed to Midland Funding, LLC, during the time
period of September 25, 2017 to September 24, 2018, and
who thereafter appeared as directed at the date, time and
location noticed for the Deposition";
2. defining the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from
HHL's collection correspondences, wherein HHL sent
consumers a 'Notice of Deposition in Aid of Execution'
allegedly without having an intention of taking an actual
deposition;
3. appointing the Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
4. appointing the Plaintiff's counsel Ari Marcus and Yitzchak
Zelman as Class Counsel;
5. approving the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directing
that it be mailed to the last known address of the
Settlement Class Members as shown in HHL's business
records. The Class Administrator will cause the Class
Notice to be mailed to Settlement Class members on or
before Tuesday, September 15, 2020. The Class
Administrator will have the notice sent by any form of
U.S. Mail providing forwarding addresses;
6. finding that mailing of the Class Notice is the only
notice required and that such notice satisfies the
requirements of due process pursuant to the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, the United States
Constitution, and any other applicable law; and
7. providing Settlement Class until Tuesday, November 3,
2020, to exclude themselves from or object to the proposed
settlement. Any Settlement Class members desiring to
exclude themselves from the action must serve copies of
the request on counsel for both Plaintiff and HHL by that
date. Any Settlement Class members who wish to object to
the settlement must submit an objection in writing to the
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, and serve copies of the
objection on counsel for both Plaintiff and HHL by that
date. Any objection must include the name and number of
the case and a statement of the reason why the objector
believes that the Court should find that proposed
settlement is not in the best interests of the class.
Objectors who have filed written objections to the
settlement may also appear at the hearing and be heard on
the fairness of the settlement. To be effective, the
request for exclusion or objection must be postmarked by
Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
Hayt Hayt and Landau is a law firm that files many credit card
collection cases. They often represent Midland Funding or Capital
One.[CC]
HEALTHCARE VENTURES: Shiflet Seeks Collective Status
----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH SHIFLET, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. HEALTHCARE VENTURES OF
OHIO, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03428-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. conditionally certifying this case as a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action under section 216(b)
against Healthcare Ventures of Ohio, LLC, Peregrine Health
Services, Inc., Peregrine Health Services of Columbus,
LLC, Peregrine Health Services of Cincinnati, LLC, and
Peregrine Health Services of Edgerton, LLC on behalf of
the Plaintiff and others similarly situated;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
FLSA claims is sent by United States Mail and e-mail to:
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendants who: (1) received a retention bonus and worked
over 40 hours in any workweek covered by the retention
bonus; or (2) were unable to take an uninterrupted 30-
minute meal break during any workweek that they worked at
least 40 hours, during the three years preceding the
filing of this Motion and continuing through the final
disposition of this case"; and
"all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of
Defendants who did not receive wages in excess of minimum
wage for all hours worked because of Defendants'
deductions during the three (3) years preceding the filing
of this Motion and continuing through the final
disposition of this case";
3. approving the proposed Notice and Consent to Join forms;
4. directing the Defendants to provide, within 14 days of an
order granting conditional certification, a Roster of all
persons (Potential Opt-In Plaintiffs) who fit the
definition of the class that includes their full names,
their dates of employment, their locations worked, job
titles, their last known home addresses, phone numbers,
and their personal email addresses; and
5. directing that the Court-approved Notice and Consent to
Join forms be sent to such present and former employees
within days of receipt of the Roster using the Potential
Opt-In Plaintiffs' home and email addresses.
This case involves the Defendants' meal deduction and retention
bonus policies or practices. According to the complaint, the
Defendants (1) deduct 30 minutes from their hourly, non-exempt
employees' daily hours worked for meal breaks that are either never
taken or that are interrupted with work duties; and (2) pay its
hourly, non-exempt employees' a non-discretionary retention bonus
which is not included in the calculation of their regular rate of
pay for purposes of overtime. The policies or practices deprive the
Defendants' hourly, non-exempt employees of their hard-earned
overtime pay.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and those similarly situated are:
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Road, Suite No. 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: 614-949-1181
Facsimile: 614-386-9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
ICONIX BRAND: Approval of SDNY Case Settlement Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand 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 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit has affirmed the settlement in the class action suit
entitled, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc., et al., Docket No.
1:15-cv-04860.
On September 16, 2019, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with the lead plaintiff in the securities class action
lawsuit pending against it in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, In re Iconix Brand Group, Inc.,
et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04860.
The settlement released all claims asserted against the Company and
the other named defendants party to the Stipulation in the Class
Action without any liability or wrongdoing attributed to them.
The settlement provided for a total settlement payment of $6.0
million, inclusive of administrative fees and fees for lead
plaintiff’s counsel and recorded as operating expense in 2019.
All of the settlement amount was paid directly by the Company's
directors and officers liability insurance provider.
On January 23, 2020, the settlement received court approval, and on
July 23, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the settlement.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc., a brand management company, owns,
licenses, and markets a portfolio of consumer brands across the
women's, men's, and home industries in the United States and
internationally. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. was founded in 1978 and
is based in New York, New York.
ILLINOIS: Weston Appeals Ruling in Inmates' Suit to 7th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Travis D. Weston filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in his lawsuit entitled TRAVIS WESTON, (also known as
Nafiabdul Basir), on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, #M07414 v. JOHN BALDWIN, JACQUELINE LASHBROOK, FRANK
LAWRENCE, LLOYD HANNA, HOWARD HARNER, and JAMES CLAYCOMB, Case No.
3:19-cv-01020-NJR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
John Baldwin is sued in his capacity as Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections (IDOC).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 20,
2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order dismissing in part
Plaintiff's Claims in the case.
Plaintiff Travis Weston, an inmate of the Illinois Department of
Corrections (IDOC) currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional
Center (Menard), brings this action for alleged deprivations of his
constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Weston
asserts claims under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
The appellate case is captioned as Travis Weston v. John Baldwin,
et al., Case No. 20-2642, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the PLRA
Fee/Motion/Memorandum is due on September 30, 2020.
Plaintiff-Appellant Travis D. Weston, also known as Nafiabdul
Basir, an inmate of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
currently incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center, appears pro
se.[BN]
Defendants-Appellees JOHN BALDWIN, Director, IDOC; JACQUELINE
LASHBROOK, Chief Administrative Officer/Warden, Menard CC; FRANK
LAWRENCE, Assistant Warden of Programs, Menard CC; LLOYD HANNA,
Registered Dietician, Menard CC; HOWARD HARNER, Licensed and/or
Ordained Chaplain; and JAMES CLAYCOMB, Licensed and/or Ordained
Chaplain, Menard CC, are represented by:
Nadine J. Wichern, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of Illinois Center
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601-0000
Telephone: (312) 814-5659
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Asks Court to Reconsider Denial of Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 for reconsideration of a
court decision denying its motion to dismiss remains pending.
Two purported class action cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Fergus v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 9, 2016; and Becker v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed June 10, 2016.
These cases arise from the same alleged facts and circumstances and
seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common
stock between April 20, 2016 and June 2, 2016 (with respect to the
Fergus matter) and between April 20, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (with
respect to the Becker matter).
These cases concern the Company's statements in press releases,
investor conference calls, and filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") beginning in April 2016 that the
Company would present updated information regarding its IMMU-132
breast cancer drug at the 2016 American Society of Clinical
Oncology ("ASCO") conference in Chicago, Illinois.
The complaints allege that these statements were false and
misleading in light of June 2, 2016 reports that ASCO had canceled
the presentation because it contained previously reported
information.
The complaints further allege that these statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for our common stock, and that the
Company and certain of its officers are thus liable under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"). An order of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice was entered on November 10, 2016 in the Becker matter.
An order granting motion to consolidate cases, appoint lead
plaintiff, and approve lead and liaison counsel was entered on
February 7, 2017 in the Fergus matter. A consolidated complaint was
filed on October 4, 2017.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on
January 26, 2018. On March 31, 2019, the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss, without prejudice, and left plaintiffs
with the ability to file an amended complaint within 30 days.
Counsel for the Company consented to an extension of time for
plaintiffs to file the proposed amended complaint for an additional
30 days.
On May 30, 2019, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
many of the same allegations that were set forth in the previously
filed complaints, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss.
On June 1, 2020, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
The Company has filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision,
which motion is currently pending before the court.
Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated NJ Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, 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 a consolidated putative
class action suit in New Jersey has been denied.
A purported class action case was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey; namely, Odeh v.
Immunomedics, Inc., et al., filed December 27, 2018.
The complaint in this action alleges that the Company failed to
disclose the results of observations made by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) during an inspection of the Company's
manufacturing facility in Morris Plains, New Jersey in August 2018.
The complaint alleges that Immunomedics misled investors by failing
to disclose the Form 483 inspection report issued by the FDA which
set forth the observations of the FDA inspector during the
inspection.
Such observations purportedly included, inter alia, manipulated
bioburden samples, misrepresentation of an integrity test procedure
in the batch record, and backdating of batch records.
The complaint further alleges that the Company’s failure to
disclose the Form 483 resulted in an artificially inflated price
for our common stock, and that the Company and certain of its
officers are thus liable under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.
On February 8, 2019, another substantially similar putative class
action case was filed in the same court. On September 10, 2019, the
court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel and consolidated
the actions.
On November 18, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint against the Company and current and former senior
officers and directors, and defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
On July 31, 2020, the Court issued an order denying defendants'
motion to dismiss.
The Company believes the allegations in the consolidated amended
complaint lack merit and intends to vigorously defend itself.
Immunomedics, Inc., a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company,
develops monoclonal antibody-based products for the targeted
treatment of cancer. The company was founded in 1982 and is
headquartered in Morris Plains, New Jersey.
INHIBITOR THERAPEUTICS: Sears Class Action Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------
Inhibitor 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 company continues to defend a
stockholder class action suit entitled, Sears v. Magrab et al.,
C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL.
On March 23, 2020, a Stockholder Class Action Complaint was filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery by a Company stockholder and
purported class representative Samuel P. Sears, commencing
litigation captioned Sears v. Magrab et al., C.A. No. 2020-0215-JTL
(the "Class Action").
The Class Action followed a request for, and subsequent provision
of, certain books and records of the Company pursuant to 8 Del. C.
Section 220. The defendants named in the Class Action are identical
to those named in the Action, with the exception that the Company
is not a party to the litigation.
The Class Action asserts two direct breach of fiduciary duty
claims-one against Mayne, the other against the Individual
Defendants-and the facts underlying those claims almost entirely
mirror those alleged in the Action.
The Company believes the Class Action is legally and factually
baseless, and the Individual Defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously.
Inhibitor Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a development stage
pharmaceutical company. The Company focuses on developing and
commercializing innovative therapies for patients with cancer and
non-cancerous proliferation disorders. Inhibitor Therapeutics
operates in the State of Florida. The company is based in Tampa,
Florida.
INSPERITY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 21 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP)
Class Period: February 11, 2019 to February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
On July 29, 2019, Insperity released its second quarter 2019
financial results. Despite delivering year-over-year growth and
meeting analysts' estimates, the Company offered disappointing
third quarter 2019 guidance and reduced its full-year 2019
guidance. Further, defendants revealed that in the second quarter
2019, Insperity had experienced an increase in large medical claim
costs, which defendants described as an anomaly which would not
impact projected cost benefit trends.
On this news, Insperity shares fell $35.74 per share, or 25
percent.
On November 4, 2019, Insperity released its third quarter 2019
financial results, which substantially missed analysts' estimates
and were materially down year-over-year. In addition, Insperity
materially reduced its full-year 2019 guidance. Defendants
attributed these results to continued large medical claim costs,
which they again attempted to describe as a mere anomaly to assuage
investor concern.
On this news, Insperity shares fell by $36.29 per share, or 34
percent.
Finally, on February 11, 2020, after the close of trading,
Insperity released its fourth quarter and full-year 2019 financial
results. On this date, Insperity revealed that, for the third
quarter in a row, large medical claims had again impacted the
Company. Further, the Company stated that it had restructured its
contract with UnitedHealthcare to no longer have financial
responsibility for any medical claims over $1 million. Insperity
also offered disappointingly bearish guidance for the first quarter
and full-year 2020.
On this news, Insperity shares declined by $17.44 per share, or 20
percent.
The complaint, filed on July 21, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to
omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's
business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to
or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i) the Company had failed
to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee
benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large
medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an
adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating
measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its
employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced
customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably
likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial
results.
For more information on the Insperity securities class action case
go to: https://bespc.com/NSP
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 19 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Insperity Inc.
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.
Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP)
NSP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 11, 2019
- February 11, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 21, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=8687&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Insperity, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to
negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit
plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical
claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse
trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the
Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee
benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer
retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to,
and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results.
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]
J.A VASQUEZ LANDSCAPING: Alvarado Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GELBER ALVARADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. J.A VASQUEZ LANDSCAPING CORP., and JOSE VASUEZ, as an
individual, Case No. 1:20-cv-04005 (E.D.N.Y., Aug. 27, 2020),
alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant to perform primary
duties, such as cutting grass, cleaning, and other miscellaneous
duties, from April 2019 until July 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 66
or more hours per week, but the Defendants did not compensate the
Plaintiff for the hours worked in excess of 40 at one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay. Additionally, the Plaintiff asserts
that the Defendants failed to pay him for the last week of his
employment, to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage
requirements, and to keep accurate payroll records.
J.A Vasquez Landscaping Corp. provides landscaping services. Jose
Vasquez owns and operates J.A Landscaping Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: 718-263-9591
Fax: 718-263-9598
JAGUAR HEALTH: Discovery Ongoing in Plant Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jaguar 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 discovery is ongoing in the class action suit
entitled, Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al.
On July 20, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Civil Action No. 3:17 cv 04102, by Tony Plant on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who held shares on April 12, 2017 and
were entitled to vote at the 2017 Special Shareholders Meeting,
against the Company and certain individuals who were directors as
of the date of the vote (collectively, the "Defendants"), in a
matter captioned Tony Plant v. Jaguar Animal Health, Inc., et al.,
making claims arising under Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 14a 9, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.14a 9,
promulgated thereunder by the SEC.
The claims alleged false and misleading information provided to
investors in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus on Form S-4 (File
No. 333 217364) declared effective by the Commission on July 6,
2017 related to the solicitation of votes from shareholders to
approve the merger and certain transactions related thereto.
The Company accepted service of the complaint and summons on behalf
of itself and the United States-based director Defendants on
November 1, 2017. The Company has not accepted service on behalf
of, and Plaintiff has not yet served, the non-U.S.-based director
Defendants.
On October 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiff and appointment of Monteverde & Associates PC as
lead counsel. That motion was granted. Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint against the Company and the United States based director
Defendants on January 10, 2018.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 12, 2018, for
which oral arguments were held on June 14, 2018. The court
dismissed the amended complaint on September 20, 2018. Plaintiff
was entitled to amend that complaint within 20 days from the date
of dismissal.
On October 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to
focus on the Company's commercial strategy in support of Equilevia
and the related disclosure statements in the Form S-4. On November
6, 2018, the Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. The Defendants argue in their motion that the second
amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted because the omissions and misrepresentations alleged in the
complaint are immaterial as a matter of law. The court denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss on June 28, 2019.
The Company answered the second amended complaint on August 2,
2019; the answer denied the material allegations of the second
amended complaint. The parties are now engaged in discovery.
Jaguar said. "If the Plaintiff were able to prove his allegations
in this matter and to establish the damages he asserts, then an
adverse ruling could have a material adverse impact on the Company.
The Company believes that it is not probable that an asset has been
impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the
financial statements and the amount of any potential loss is not
reasonably estimable."
Jaguar Health, Inc., a commercial stage natural-products
pharmaceuticals company, focuses on developing gastrointestinal
products for human prescription use and animals worldwide. Jaguar
Health, Inc. is headquartered in San Francisco, California.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Retirement Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, 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's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint in Cambridge Retirement System v. JELD-WEN Holding, Inc.,
et al., is pending.
On February 19, 2020, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia against the Company, current and former
Company executives, and various Onex-related entities alleging
violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, as
well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants and Onex-related entities.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes the claims
lack merit and intends to vigorously defend against the action.
On May 8, 2020, the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund
were named as co-lead plaintiffs and filed an amended complaint on
June 22, 2020.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
29, 2020.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Class Cert. Opposition Trial Set for Feb. 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2020, that trial in the company's motions to oppose class
certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser
Actions in the putative class action suit entitled, In Re: Interior
Molded Doors Antitrust Litigation, is set for February 8, 2021.
On October 19, 2018, Grubb Lumber Company, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and one of its competitors in the doors market,
Masonite Corporation ("Masonite"), in the Eastern District of
Virginia.
The company subsequently received additional complaints from and on
behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of interior molded doors.
The suits have been consolidated into two separate actions, a
Direct Purchaser Action and an Indirect Purchaser Action.
The suits allege that Masonite and the company violated Section 1
of the Sherman Act, and in the Indirect Purchaser Action, related
state law antitrust and consumer protection laws, by engaging in a
scheme to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize the prices
of interior molded doors in the United States.
The complaints seek unquantified ordinary and treble damages,
declaratory relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the actions.
On September 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuits in their entirety and granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss various state law claims and to limit all claims
to a four-year statute of limitations.
As a result, the plaintiffs' damages period is limited to the
four-year period between 2014 and 2018.
Together with Masonite, the company filed motions to oppose class
certification in both the Direct Purchaser and Indirect Purchaser
Actions on May 19, 2020.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
JELD-WEN HOLDING: Development Emeraude's Suit Underway in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELD-WEN Holding, 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 lawsuit in Canada, initiated by Development Emeraude
Inc.
On May 15, 2020, Development Emeraude Inc., on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the company and Masonite in the Superior Court of the
Province of Quebec, Canada.
The putative class is constituted of any person in Canada who,
since October 2012, purchased one or more interior molded doors
from us or Masonite.
The suit alleges an illegal conspiracy between us and Masonite to
agree on prices, the distribution of market shares and/or the
production levels of interior molded doors and that the plaintiffs
suffered damages in that they were charged and paid higher prices
for interior molded doors than they would have had to pay but for
the alleged anti-competitive conduct.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Company believes the claims lack merit and intends to
vigorously defend against the action.
JELD-WEN Holding, Inc. manufactures and sells doors and windows
primarily in North America, Europe, and Australasia. The company
was founded in 1960 and is headquartered in Charlotte, North
Carolina.
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Bid to Nix SDNY Putative Class Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kingstone Companies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has granted the
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the putative
securities class action suit originally commenced in 2019 against
the Company and certain current and former officers and directors.
A copy of the Company's press release is available at
https://bit.ly/3bwQvmb
Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.
KINGSTONE COMPANIES: Woolgar Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Kingstone 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 the court has granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in Woolgar v. Kingstone
Companies et al., 19 cv 05500.
On June 12, 2019, Phillip Woolgar filed a suit naming the Company
and certain present or former officers and directors as defendants
in a putative class action captioned Woolgar v. Kingstone Companies
et al., 19 cv 05500 (S.D.N.Y.), asserting claims under Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons or entities that
purchased Kingstone securities between March 14, 2018, and April
29, 2019, and alleges violations of the federal securities law in
connection with the Company's April 29, 2019 announcement regarding
losses related to winter catastrophe events.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose that it did
not adequately follow industry best practices related to claims
handling and thus did not record sufficient claim reserves, and
that as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations and prospects misled investors.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an undetermined amount of
money damages.
The Company, after consulting legal counsel, believes the lawsuit
to be without merit.
On August 10, 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the suit.
The court has permitted plaintiff to amend the complaint to attempt
to cure the deficiencies identified by the court in its opinion (to
the extent plaintiff has a good faith basis to do so). The amended
complaint, if any, would need to be filed by September 11, 2020.
Kingstone Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Kingstone
Insurance Company, underwrites property and casualty insurance
products to small businesses and individuals in New York. The
company was formerly known as DCAP Group, Inc. and changed its name
to Kingstone Companies, Inc. in July 2009. Kingstone Companies,
Inc. was founded in 1886 and is headquartered in Kingston, New
York.
LULAROE: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax
------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a customer's proposed class action accusing
clothing retailer LuLaRoe of improperly collecting sales tax in
tax-free jurisdictions will be allowed to proceed after an Alaska
federal judge determined that most of the claims were valid. [GN]
LYFT INC: Continues to Defend IPO-Related Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
Lyft, 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 two consolidated
putative class action suits related to its Initial Public Offering
(IPO) Registration Statement.
Beginning in April 2019, several putative class actions were filed
in California state and federal court against the Company, its
directors, certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters
named in the initial public offering (IPO) Registration Statement
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the IPO.
These cases have been consolidated into two putative class actions,
one in California state court and the other in federal court.
On July 1, 2020, the California state court sustained in part and
overruled in part the Company's demurrer to the consolidated
complaint. The Company filed its answer to this consolidated
complaint on August 3, 2020.
On May 14, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the federal court case.
On July 20, 2020, the federal court vacated the hearing set on that
motion and stated that it will issue a written order on the motion
at an unspecified time.
Lyft said, "The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend against them. The Company's
chances of success on the merits are still uncertain and any
possible loss or range of loss cannot be reasonably estimated."
Lyft, Inc. provides online ridesharing services. The Company offers
ride booking, payment processing, and car transportation services.
Lyft serves customers in the United States. The company is based in
San Francisco California.
MACY'S INC: $192,000 Settlement in Carroll Suit Gets Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNA CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. MACY'S, INC. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01060-RDP (N.D. Ala.), Judge R. David
Proctor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, Southern Division, granted final approval to the proposed
class settlement.
Macy's is a retail department store selling merchandise to the
public through its brick and mortar stores, as well as through its
online store—www.macys.com. A Cyber Attack on Macy's occurred
from May 1, 2018 through June 11, 2018, which involved unauthorized
access or unauthorized attempted access to online customer profiles
- and Personal Information associated with those profiles -- using
valid user credentials. In July 2018, Macy's gave notice of the
Cyber Attack.
On July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her initial complaint in the
Court. On Oct. 9, 2018, Macy's filed its first motion to dismiss.
On Oct. 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint,
alleging negligence and a violation of Alabama's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The Plaintiff sought certification of a class,
which the Court preliminarily approved on Aug. 19, 2019.
On Jan. 30, 2019, the Parties mediated their dispute and reached a
settlement in principle after a mediation session with JAMS
mediator Jeffrey Grubman, Esq., in Miami, Florida. Prior to and
during the mediation, Macy's shared specific and detailed
information with Class Counsel about the Cyber Attack. The Parties
also engaged in a number of conferences between themselves about
the potential resolution of this case. Those discussions occurred
before, during, and after the mediation. The Parties kept the
court informed about their efforts by filing Joint Reports.
On July 17, 2019, the Parties presented an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of their settlement on behalf of the class.
And, on Aug. 19, 2019, the Court granted preliminary approval,
which incorporated the deadlines the Parties proposed in their
Joint Report filed shortly before that.
The Settlement seeks to resolve the claims of all individuals to
whom Macy's sent notice of the Cyber Attack in July 2018. In
particular, the Settlement provides significant and valuable
benefits to the Settlement Class Members and squarely addresses the
issues raised in the Litigation. The Settlement provides monetary
payments to Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms.
Settlement Class Members submitting valid Claim Forms have two
options to receive a monetary payment:
1. Documented Expenses and Lost Time: Reimbursement for
documented out-of-pocket expenses and lost time that were incurred
as a result of the Cyber Attack for one or more of the following,
not to exceed a total of $1,500 per Settlement Class Member: (i)
costs and expenses spent addressing identity theft or fraud; (ii)
preventative costs including purchasing credit monitoring, placing
security freezes on credit reports, or requesting copies of credit
reports for review; (iii) other documented losses that were not
reimbursed; and (iv) up to five hours of documented time spent
dealing with the repercussions of the Cyber Attack (calculated at
the rate of $15 per hour); and/or
2. Undocumented Time Spent: Any Settlement Class Member who
spent time dealing with repercussions of the Cyber Attack, but does
not have documentation of such time, will be eligible to submit a
Settlement Claim for time spent in an amount of $15 per hour up to
two hours (for a total of $30).
The Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Claim Form are
eligible to seek reimbursement under both option 1 and 2 for an
amount not to exceed a total of $1,530. For all Approved Claims,
Macy's will pay a total of $192,500. Macy's will pay attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, and a service award as set forth in the
Settlement on top of that amount. As part of the consideration for
the Settlement, upon final approval, it is agreed that the
Plaintiff and all the Settlement Class Members who do not validly
opt out will be deemed to have released all claims against Macy's
based on, relating to, concerning, or arising out of the Cyber
Attack or the allegations, facts, or circumstances described in the
Litigation and/or Complaint, as set forth in more detail in Section
VII of the Settlement.
After the court preliminarily approved the Settlement, notice was
issued to members of the Settlement Class. The deadline to opt out
of the Settlement was Jan. 7, 2020, and the deadline to file an
objection was Jan. 8, 2020 (if submitted electronically via CM/ECF)
or Jan. 3, 2020 (if sent via U.S. Mail). There have been no
objections from any interested party, and only three Settlement
Class Members have opted out. The deadline to file a claim expired
on April 6, 2020. But, according to the Class Counsel, KCC Class
Action Services, LLC remains in the preliminary stages of its
review. For claims submitted through Jan. 31, 2020, KCC has
preliminarily validated 2,821 claims.
The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion
for Final Approval, and Unopposed Motion for Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses. The Court preliminarily approved the Parties'
proposed Settlement Agreement on Aug. 19, 2019. On June 2, 2020,
the court held a Final Approval Hearing.
Pursuant to the notice requirements set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and in the Preliminary Approval Order, Judge Proctor is
satisfied that the Settlement Class Members were properly notified
of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, of the right to
opt-out and the right to object to the Settlement Agreement, and of
the right to be heard at the Final Approval Hearing. The Judge
finds that the Class Action Settlement is the product of good
faith, arm's-length negotiations between the Parties. Also based
on the record before him, the Judge finds that the Class Action
Settlement, as provided for in the Settlement Agreement, is in all
respects fair, reasonable, adequate, and proper, and it is in the
best interest of the Settlement Class.
The Settlement Class is defined as follows: All residents of the
United States who Macy's sent a notification in July 2018
concerning suspected unauthorized activity as a result of the Cyber
Attack.
Plaintiff Anna Carroll is certified as the Settlement Class
Representative, and Nicholas Armstrong and Oscar M. Price IV of
Price Armstrong LLC are appointed as the Class Counsel.
As part of the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of
the Class Action Settlement and Final Certification of Class for
Settlement, the Class Counsel asks the court to award Class
Representative Anna Carroll an incentive payment in the amount of
$2,500. The Judge finds that the requested incentive payment of
$2,500 is reasonable and appropriate. The incentive payment
proposed in the case is not shrouded by a "cloud of collusion," but
instead is very reasonable and warranted in light of the time and
effort the Plaintiff committed to the litigation, not to mention
the resulting benefits to the Settlement Class.
The Judge has also reviewed the Class Counsel's Unopposed Motion
for an Award of Fees and Expenses. Upon consideration of the
record and other proceedings at the Final Fairness Hearing and the
reasonableness of the requested fee, the Judge concludes that the
Class Counsel's Motion is due to be granted.
In addition to attorneys' fees, the Class Counsel requests costs
and expenses in the amount of $2,500. The Class Counsel state that
actual expenses were $8,669.50, but that they are only requesting
$2,500. The Judge concludes that the Class Counsel's costs and
expenses were properly incurred and are thus reimbursable.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion as to costs and expenses is due
to be granted.
For all these reasons, and after careful review and rigorous
analysis, Judge Proctor certifies the Settlement Class, approves
the Final Settlement, and awards fees, costs, and approves a
service payment. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the
case.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/mUXAqs from Leagle.com.
MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces Class Action Over 2018 Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Alex Scroxton, writing for ComputerWeekly.com, reports that a
former technology journalist is to lead a class action lawsuit
against Marriott International, seeking compensation on behalf of
millions of hotel guests from England and Wales who fell victim to
a data breach at its Starwood Hotels chain.
Half a billion guest records were exposed in the Starwood data
breach, which unfolded over a four-year period between July 2014
and September 2018.
The leaked data included names, postal address, phone numbers,
email addresses, passport numbers, loyalty programme details, birth
dates, gender, reservation information, communication preferences
and, in some instances, payment card details.
Marriott, which took over Starwood in 2016, was heavily criticised
for failing to take adequate measures to ensure the security of its
guests' data, and to stop unauthorised and illegal processing of
it. It has been fined GBP99m by the UK's Information Commissioner's
Office (ICO), although this fine is currently being deferred for a
number of reasons.
The representative claimant in the action is Martin Bryant --
founder of technology and media consultancy Big Revolution and
previously editor-in-chief at technology news website The Next Web
-- who is being represented by law firm Hausfeld.
Bryant and Hausfeld are claiming for loss of control of personal
data resulting from Marriott's breaches of the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) and/or its statutory duties under the
Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998.
"Personal data is increasingly critical as we live more of our
lives online, but as consumers we don't always realise the risks we
are exposed to when our data is compromised through no fault of our
own," said Bryant.
"I hope this case will raise awareness of the value of our personal
data, result in fair compensation for those of us who have fallen
foul of Marriott's vast and long-lasting data breach, and also
serve notice to other data owners that they must hold our data
responsibly."
Hausfeld partner Michael Bywell added: "Over a period of several
years, Marriott International failed to take adequate technical or
organisational measures to protect millions of their guests'
personal data which was entrusted to them. Marriott International
acted in clear breach of data protection laws specifically put in
place to protect data subjects."
The claim is being brought as a representative action, which means
anyone living in England and Wales who made a reservation to stay
at a Starwood property before 10 September 2018 will automatically
be included in it at no cost or risk to themselves. Further details
are available at a claim website set up for the purpose.
ProPrivacy's Attila Tomascheck commented: "Perhaps, slowly but
surely, large corporations are finally starting to be held
accountable for ensuring customer data is kept properly secured.
"The collective action lawsuit filed by Martin Bryant against
Marriott in response to the massive data breach the hotel chain
disclosed in 2018 is not at all insignificant – it's a shot fired
by an influential tech journalist that is sure to make waves and
not go unnoticed.
"It's a signal that the days of the largest corporations in the
world being free to mishandle sensitive consumer data with impunity
are numbered.
"It's a warning that recklessly leaving systems vulnerable to
attack and allowing hundreds of millions of consumers' private data
to fall into the hands of criminals will no longer be met with a
mere slap on the wrist."
Tomascheck said Marriott could apologise and promise to do better
until it was blue in the face, but until it made the effort to
properly protect its customers' data in the first place, and work
towards truly mitigating the risks of a data breach - note that it
disclosed a second incident earlier in 2020 - "shots will continue
to be fired" by the victims.
Orange Cyberdefense's Stuart Reed added: "The news of an impending
lawsuit against Marriott is the latest in a series of blows
suffered by the international hotel group. Having already been
served with a fine last year, this should serve as a wake-up call
to organisations of all sizes of the potential severity of
penalties faced by those who fail to recognise that cyber security
can no longer be treated as a lower-priority activity.
"It is essential that all organisations take the utmost care and
due diligence when applying relevant processes and procedures for
good data hygiene. It is now very clear that the consequence of
poor cyber security is no longer just damage to intangible items
such as brand reputation. Organisations are now faced with direct
legal and financial consequences if they are unable to demonstrate
a mature approach to cyber security." [GN]
MASTERCORP INC: Camerier Seeks Proper OT Wages for Housekeepers
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY CATHERINE CAMERIER and WENDY HARMON, Each Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MASTERCORP, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05120 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 31, 2020), alleges that the
Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act by failing to
pay the Plaintiffs and other executive housekeepers proper overtime
compensation for all hours that they worked.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Camerier as an Executive
Housekeeper from May 2020 until August 2020, while Plaintiff Harmon
worked as an Executive Housekeeper since July 2012.
According to the complaint, the Defendant classified the Plaintiffs
and other Executive Housekeepers as salaried employees, exempt from
the overtime requirements of the FLSA, the IMWL, and the AMWA. As a
result, the Defendant has deprived the Plaintiffs and other
Executive Housekeepers of overtime compensation for all of the
hours worked over 40 per week.
Mastercorp, Inc., provides hospitality services, such as
housekeeping, maintenance and laundry services, to resorts and
developers throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
One Financial Center
650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 411
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: {888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MED-CARE DIABETIC: Summary Judgment to Silverman in Arwa Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARWA CHIROPRACTIC, P.C., individually and as
representative of the certified class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
MED-CARE DIABETIC & MEDICAL SUPPLIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 19-1916 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (i) affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment to Silverman; and (ii) reversed
the district court's vacation of the default judgment on liability
against Med-Care and the denial of Arwa's renewed motion for
default judgment.
The case is about a medical supply company that sent faxes to
thousands of medical providers to solicit prescriptions to sell
medical equipment to the providers' patients. One provider
received numerous faxes and filed the class action challenging the
faxing practices under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
Plaintiff Arwa Chiropractic P.C. is an Illinois medical provider.
On six occasions, Arwa received nearly identical faxes containing a
prescription request form for a nebulizer (which turns liquid
medicine into a mist) from Defendant Med-Care Diabetic & Medical
Supplies Inc. Med-Care used a third party, WestFax, to send the
faxes in bulk. It provided WestFax with blank templates for the
prescription request forms, along with spreadsheets of contact
information to fill in the forms. WestFax then sent Med-Care's
faxes to thousands of medical providers. Those Arwa received were
part of a broadcast of 46,051 faxes in which each differed only by
the patient and doctor information. Med-Care's CEO, Dr. Steven
Silverman, explained that Med-Care's business model as a mail-order
medical equipment company involved reaching out to physicians to
request prescriptions after first being contacted by patients
needing medical products.
Arwa sued Med-Care and Silverman on behalf of a putative class of
fax recipients, claiming the Defendants' faxing practices violated
the TCPA. Arwa moved to certify the class, which the district
court granted. The defense counsel then moved to withdraw as the
attorney for Med-Care but continued to represent Silverman. The
counsel has also informed the court that Med-Care had commenced a
proceeding in Florida court assigning its assets for the benefit of
creditors, a state proceeding similar to bankruptcy.
The district court granted the counsel's motion to withdraw from
representing Med-Care and ordered it to have an attorney appear if
it wished to continue to defend the case. When none did, Arwa
moved for default against Med-Care under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 55(a), which was granted. Later Arwa moved for default
judgment against Med-Care. The district court granted that motion
and entered default judgment for Arwa against Med-Care as to
liability, but the court deferred the question of damages.
Moving to the next Defendant, Arwa sought partial summary judgment
against Dr. Silverman on its TCPA claim, and Silverman moved for
summary judgment on all claims. After reviewing the parties'
briefing and the law, the district court concluded that Med-Care's
faxes were not advertisements, and it denied Arwa's motion for
summary judgment. Arwa argued Silverman directly participated in
or authorized the faxes and should also be liable, but the only
evidence Arwa cited to support this theory was that Silverman
"knew" or "was aware" that Med-Care's procedures included sending
faxed prescription requests to physicians. So the court granted
Silverman's motion for summary judgment because even if the faxes
were advertisements, he could not be personally liable unless he
was a "sender" under the TCPA or had direct personal participation
in or personally authorized the faxes.
Arwa then renewed its motion for default judgment against Med-Care
and submitted its damages calculation. Silverman, who despite
receiving summary judgment in his favor had remained active in the
case. He opposed Arwa's request and argued the default judgment
against Med-Care was logically inconsistent with the court's ruling
that the Med-Care faxes were not advertisements.
At an April 11, 2019 hearing, after Arwa and Silverman supplemented
their arguments, the district court considered the question of
inconsistent judgments. Arwa had sought to hold Med-Care and
Silverman liable based on the same conduct: the sending of
unsolicited fax advertisements. The court concluded that
defendants sued jointly should not be subjected to inconsistent
judgments. Given the court had found that faxes were not
advertisements, it reasoned that Arwa was not entitled to a default
judgment on liability against Med-Care. So the court denied Arwa's
renewed motion for default judgment, vacated the default judgment
on liability against Med-Care, and entered judgment for both
Silverman and Med-Care.
Arwa appeals those rulings, arguing Med-Care's prescription request
forms are advertisements under the TCPA, a genuine issue of
material fact exists as to Silverman's personal liability, and
summary judgment for Silverman does not preclude a default judgment
against Med-Care. Silverman disagrees with each of these
arguments. He believes the district court was correct to vacate
the previous default judgment as to liability against Med-Care and
to enter judgment for Med-Care. Med-Care has not participated in
the appeal.
The Seventh Circuit finds that personal-participation standard has
been criticized as resting on the challenged assumption that
traditional forms of common-law personal liability remain available
under federal statutes by default. But the Seventh Circuit need
not decide whether personal-participation liability is present in
the case. The only claim Arwa offers in support of Silverman's
liability was that he "knew" or "was aware" that Med-Care's
procedures included sending the faxes. Mere knowledge is
insufficient. Even assuming personal-participation liability is
the standard, direct participation or authorization would be
required, and that is absent. So the Seventh Circuit concludes
that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in
Silverman's favor.
When a court enters a default judgment as to liability, it must
accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint, except
those regarding the amount of damages. That occurred in the
instant case, the Seventh Circuit holds. Arwa's requests for
default and default judgment contained all the information
necessary for the district court to issue its rulings. Med-Care
did not appear after November 2017 and failed to explain its
absence. Indeed, Med-Care has not appeared on appeal and no
defense to the contrary has been offered for us to hold otherwise.
These rulings by the district court were within its discretion,
which it properly exercised.
Arwa has challenged the district court's decision to vacate the
default judgment on liability against Med-Care and to deny Arwa's
request for default judgment as to damages. The Seventh Circuit
concludes that the district court abused its discretion in vacating
its default judgment as to liability for Arwa and against Med-Care.
It did not analyze the circumstances under the good cause standard
of Rule 55(c). A court abuses its discretion when it fails to
consider a motion under the proper legal standard. The district
court violated this requirement when it issued its April 11, 2019
rulings without considering the applicable Rule 55(c) standard.
It follows that the district court also abused its discretion by
not reaching Arwa's motion for default judgment as to damages.
When Arwa presented the motion, it sought a final judgment as to
Med-Care, including a damages amount. Because the district court
did not apply the appropriate standard, Arwa's motion for default
judgment as to damages did not receive proper consideration and is
subject to the district court's resolution on remand.
On appeal, the parties take opposite positions on the district
court's conclusion that Med-Care's prescription request forms are
not advertisements for purposes of the TCPA. The Seventh Circuit
holds that although the elements for TCPA liability for Med-Care
and Silverman may overlap, the theories of liability for each
Defendant do not require uniformity of judgments. So judgment
against Med-Care would not necessarily be inconsistent with a
judgment for Silverman. The district court also mistakenly
believed that Arwa sought to "essentially" hold Silverman
vicariously liable as an officer of Med-Care, which would require
uniformity in judgments. No record evidence suggests Arwa wanted
to hold Silverman liable based on vicarious liability.
The Seventh Circuit cannot uphold a judgment in Med-Care's favor
when the good cause factors under Rule 55 were not analyzed, and
joint and several liability was conflated with vicarious liability.
The Seventh Circuit cannot find any evidence of good cause when
Med-Care has not appeared in this case past the class certification
stage and has not put on a defense as to whether the faxes are
advertisements. And the district court's ruling that the faxes
were not advertisements was not necessary for its holding that
Silverman was not liable.
Even if the entry of the default judgment resulted in a judgment
inconsistent with the judgment on the merits for Silverman, the
issue is not properly before the Court, the Seventh Circuit does
not review the merits of the underlying judgment as to Med-Care or
whether the faxes are advertisements. Because the district court
vacated the entry of default judgment as to liability and denied
Arwa's motion for renewed default judgment without analyzing the
good cause factors of Rule 55(c), and did so based on a misplaced
concern of inconsistent judgments, the Seventh Circuit concludes
that the district court abused its discretion in its April 11, 2019
ruling vacating the default judgment as to liability against
Med-Care and entering judgment for Med-Care.
The Seventh Circuit concludes that Arwa has not provided sufficient
evidence to establish Dr. Silverman's personal liability under the
TCPA, so the appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment to him. But the district court failed to apply
the correct good cause factors in analyzing the default judgment on
liability as to Med-Care, and that judgment is not inconsistent
with summary judgment for Silverman. So the Seventh Circuit
reversed the district court's vacation of the default judgment on
liability against Med-Care and the denial of Arwa's renewed motion
for default judgment. The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings consistent with its
Opinion.
A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/h0Oj9S from Leagle.com.
MERCK & CO: Trial in Suit Over Zetia Sales Rescheduled to 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 class action suit related to the
sales of Zetia, a high blood cholesterol drug, has been rescheduled
to begin on February 23, 2021.
As previously disclosed, Merck, MSD, Schering Corporation and MSP
Singapore Company LLC (collectively, the Merck Defendants) are
defendants in putative class action and opt-out lawsuits filed in
2018 on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers of Zetia alleging
violations of federal and state antitrust laws, as well as other
state statutory and common law causes of action.
The cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal
multidistrict litigation before Judge Rebecca Beach Smith in the
Eastern District of Virginia.
In December 2018, the court denied the Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss or stay the direct purchaser putative class actions pending
bilateral arbitration.
In August 2019, the district court adopted in full the report and
recommendation of the magistrate judge with respect to the Merck
Defendants' motions to dismiss on non-arbitration issues, thereby
granting in part and denying in part Merck Defendants' motions to
dismiss. In addition, in June 2019, the representatives of the
putative direct purchaser class filed an amended complaint, and in
August 2019, retailer opt-out plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint.
The Merck Defendants moved to dismiss the new allegations in both
complaints. In October 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report
and recommendation recommending that the district judge grant the
motions in their entirety. In December 2019, the district court
adopted this report and recommendation in part. The district court
granted the Merck Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent the
motion sought dismissal of claims for overcharges paid by entities
that purchased generic ezetimibe from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Par
Pharmaceutical) and dismissed any claims for such overcharges.
In November 2019, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification.
On June 18, 2020, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the district judge grant in part
the direct purchasers' motion for class certification and certify a
class of 35 direct purchasers.
On July 2, 2020, defendants objected to the report and
recommendation. The indirect purchasers' class certification motion
is still pending before the magistrate judge.
Trial in this matter has been rescheduled to begin on February 23,
2021.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It
operates through four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health,
Healthcare Services, and Alliances. Merck & Co., Inc. was founded
in 1891 and is headquartered in Kenilworth, New Jersey.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Certifies Class in Schultz FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT A. SCHULTZ, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND
CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 16-4415 (D.
N.J.), Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted Plaintiffs Robert A. Schultz, Jr.
and Donna L. Schultz's Motion for Class Certification.
The putative class action involves claims that the Defendant
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), by
sending collection letters to the Plaintiffs that were deceptive
and misleading. The Defendant is an agency that regularly collects
or attempts to collect past-due consumer debts.
On July 21, August 24, September 2, and Oct. 23, 2015, the
Defendant mailed collection letters to Robert to collect on three
different debts, the original creditors of which were Synchrony
Bank, Citibank, and Capital One, respectively. On August 24 and
Oct. 23, 2015, it mailed collection letters to Donna to collect on
a debt originally owed to Capital One. The Plaintiffs allege that
the IRS Reporting Language is false, deceptive, and misleading
because it implies there could be negative consequences with the
IRS and deliberately fails to disclose that such reporting is
required under only limited circumstances.
The Plaintiffs filed the putative class action on July 20, 2016,
and amended the Complaint on Nov. 22, 2016. The one-count Amended
Complaint seeks to certify a class of similarly-situated consumers
to pursue damages for a violation of FDCPA Section 1692e, which
prohibits the use of any false, deceptive, or misleading
representation in connection with the collection of any debt.
On May 8, 2017, the Hon. Jose L. Linares dismissed the Amended
Complaint, finding that the IRS Reporting Language was not
deceptive as a matter of law. The Third Circuit reversed and
remanded, reasoning that there was no possibility of IRS reporting
in light of the fact that the debt was less than $600, but the use
of the conditional 'might' in the IRS Reporting Language suggested
that reporting was a possibility. Because the IRS Reporting
Language referenced an event that would never occur and the least
sophisticated debtor could be influenced by potential IRS
reporting, the Third Circuit concluded that a reasonable juror may
find a violation of the FDCPA.
On Dec. 28, 2018, the Defendant filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration, which Judge Linares denied on May 13, 2019. Following
limited class discovery, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to
certify the following class: All natural persons with addresses
within the state of New Jersey, to whom, beginning July 20, 2015
through and including April 25, 2016, Midland Credit Management,
Inc., sent one or more letter(s) in attempts to collect a consumer
debt with an original creditor of Capital One, and a current
balance of less than $600 at the time the letter(s) was sent, which
contained the statement: "We will report forgiveness of debt as
required by IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time
a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your
case."
The Defendant opposes class certification. It argues that the
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing -- both individually and as
representatives of the putative class -- because the Amended
Complaint does not allege an injury-in-fact. Judge Arleo
disagrees. The Judge holds that by receiving collection letters
that were allegedly false, deceptive, or misleading in violation of
Section 1692e, the Plaintiffs have Article III standing to sue.
The Defendant argues that the Court should not certify the Proposed
Class because it differs from the class outlined in the Amended
Complaint. The Judge disagrees. The Judge holds that the
Plaintiff's amendment of the Proposed Class in the instant Motion
was permissible. The Defendant has been clear about its intent to
seek arbitration throughout the litigation. By nullifying that
defense in defining the Proposed Class, the Plaintiffs help to
ensure that common issues predominate over individual ones.
The Judge next turns to whether the Proposed Class meets Rule 23's
certification requirements. The Proposed Class is defined with
reference to objective criteria: the state to which Defendant
mailed collection letters, the date of those letters, debts on
which Capital One is the original creditor, and a current balance
of less than $600. There is a reliable and administratively
feasible mechanism for the Defendant to determine potential class
members; indeed, based on class discovery requests, the Defendant
produced to the Plaintiff a spreadsheet indicating that, during the
relevant time period, it mailed collection letters with the IRS
Reporting Language to 8,853 New Jersey consumers for whom Capital
One was their original creditor and their current balance was less
than $600.
Judge Arleo finds that the Proposed Class meets the requirements of
Rule 23(a), and the Class may be maintained under Rule 23(b).
Limiting the Proposed Class to the 7,474 potential members ensures
that common questions predominate, because none of these
individuals would ever be subject to the IRS Reporting Requirement
-- their initial balance was less than $600 and the Defendant would
not increase that balance, so any possible debt discharge would be
for less than $600 and the IRS Reporting Requirement could not
apply. The key issue at trial, then, would be whether including
the IRS Reporting Language in a debt collection letter is
misleading, in violation of Section 1692e, when discharge of that
debt could never actually result in reporting to the IRS.
As such, in order to satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance
requirement, the Judge redefines the Proposed Class as follows: All
natural persons with addresses within the state of New Jersey, to
whom, beginning July 20, 2015 through and including April 25, 2016,
Midland Credit Management, Inc., sent a Section 1692g initial
communication or LT1Y letter in an attempt to collect a consumer
debt with an original creditor of Capital One, and a current
balance of less than $600 at the time the letter was sent, which
contained the statement: "We will report forgiveness of debt as
required by IRS regulations. Reporting is not required every time
a debt is canceled or settled, and might not be required in your
case."
Finally, Judge Arleo finds that the Plaintiffs have satisfied the
superiority requirement. The Judge is not aware of any other
similar litigation, conducting the litigation in New Jersey is
proper given that the class is defined by reference to collection
letters mailed to New Jersey addresses (and the Plaintiffs are New
Jersey residents), and management difficulties are less likely when
common questions predominate in the FDCPA claims.
For the reasons stated, Judge Arleo granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Mwds4o from Leagle.com.
MISSOURI: Hep-C Treatment Required Under Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Jordan, writing for The St. Louis American, reports that a
settlement in a federal class action lawsuit announced by The
American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri on Aug. 21 ensures that
people who are incarcerated in Missouri prisons will receive
Hepatitis-C treatment and education.
The settlement was reached between MacArthur Justice Center,
Wilkinson Walsh LLP, ACLU of Missouri and the Missouri Department
of Corrections (MDOC) and Corizon Health, the department's medical
provider.
Hepatitis C is a liver infection caused by the hepatitis C virus
(HCV) and is spread through contact with blood from an infected
person. HCV can lead to life-threatening conditions, including
cirrhosis and liver cancer, said to be widespread in Missouri
prisons. Although the exact number of incarcerated people with HCV
is unknown because of a lack of routine testing, it is estimated
that 10 to 15 percent of those under the supervision, care, and
custody of MDOC and Corizon are infected with HCV.
In the last decade, a new class of drugs known as direct-acting
antiviral (DAA) medications was approved to treat HCV. However,
these drugs are expensive and were routinely denied to incarcerated
people in Missouri, leading to lifelong injuries and deaths.
"This settlement will save countless lives," said Amy Breihan,
co-director of the MacArthur Justice Center's Missouri office. "It
means Missouri will go from treating less than 1% of its infected
prison population, to eventually treating every incarcerated person
with chronic Hepatitis C. The impact on the health of our
incarcerated clients and the public overall will be immense."
The settlement agreement stipulates that over the next eight years,
MDOC and Corizon will spend approximately $50 million to treat
incarcerated people in Missouri with chronic HCV, beginning with
the sickest individuals; MDOC and Corizon will monitor individuals
at high risk for serious health conditions as a result of current
or past HCV infection; MDOC and Corizon will provide educational
materials regarding the risks of HCV, the benefits of testing, and
their policies relating to treatment;
Corizon medical staff will receive HCV-related training; and MDOC
and Corizon will provide quarterly reports to Plaintiffs' counsel
regarding the progress of treatment.
"Missouri prison officials and their chosen provider have known
there is a safe cure for thousands of individuals in their custody
with Hepatitis C and could have prevented unnecessary pain and
death by allowing treatment," said Tony Rothert, legal director of
the ACLU of Missouri. "This settlement is a step toward correcting
the state's failure to provide necessary medical care to persons in
the state's care and will help protect the public from the spread
of this terrible illness by curing individuals before they return
to the community."
The federal class-action lawsuit was originally filed by the ACLU
of Missouri and the MacArthur Justice Center in December of 2016.
In July 2017, the case was certified as a class action consisting
of thousands of incarcerated Missourians. In August 2019, the court
held a four-day hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction.
"We got to this point by demonstrating in the courtroom that the
science defendants relied on to justify their lack of treatment was
indefensible," said Betsy Henthorne, of Wilkinson Walsh. "From the
week-long hearing on our motion for a preliminary injunction,
through our depositions of senior MDOC and Corizon officials, we
established a factual record of indifference that was as
heartbreaking as it was compelling. We are grateful that those
whose lives and health had been disregarded by MDOC and Corizon
will get the treatment they deserve."
The proposed class action settlement must be approved by the
federal District Court following a fairness hearing, which the
parties anticipate will be held sometime this fall. [GN]
MOSES CONE: NC Supreme Court Flips Dismissal of Chambers Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL;
THE MOSES H. CONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL OPERATING CORPORATION d/b/a
MOSES CONE HEALTH SYSTEM and d/b/a CONE HEALTH; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 147PA18 (N.C.), the Supreme Court of North
Carolina vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
trial court's order dismissing the case.
Christopher Chambers and his wife were sued in May 2012 by Moses
Cone seeking collection of $14,358.14 plus interest, allegedly owed
for emergency room services. Around the same time, Chambers filed
a class action complaint against The Moses H. Cone Memorial
Hospital and The Moses Cone, seeking a declaratory judgment that
the contract he signed as an uninsured patient needing emergency
medical treatment entitled Moses Cone to recover no more than the
reasonable value of the services it provided.
On Aug. 23, 2011, Chambers was treated at Moses Cone's emergency
room where he underwent an emergency appendectomy. He was
uninsured at the time. In his complaint, Chambers alleged that the
$14,358.14 he was charged by Moses Cone (separate from independent
physicians' and other non-hospital charges) was far more than the
payment amount required from the vast majority of Moses Cone's
patients receiving similar services, and he alleged that the bill
was grossly excessive, out of proportion to Moses Cone's actual
cost, and much greater than the reasonable value of such services.
Chambers sought to bring the action on behalf of a class, defined
as follows: All individuals (or their guardians or representatives)
who within four years of the date of the filing of the Complaint in
this action and through the date that the Court certifies the
action as a class action (a) received emergency care medical
treatment at Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital or another Cone Health
Hospital; (b) whose bills were not paid in whole or part by
commercial insurance or a governmental healthcare program; and (c)
who were not granted a full discount or waiver under Defendants'
charity care policies or otherwise had their bills permanently
waived or written off in full by Defendants.
According to Moses Cone's standard contract in force at the time
Chambers had his appendectomy, the patient was obligated to pay the
Moses Cone's bill in accordance with the regular rates and terms of
Cone Health. Chambers contended he expected to pay the same as
other emergency care patients who sign the same contract but that,
as an uninsured patient, he was charged 100% of Moses Cone's
Chargemaster rates, which he alleges are artificial, grossly
inflated rates.
Chambers initially filed suit on May 11, 2012. Moses Cone filed an
answer and counterclaim on Aug. 3, 2012 denying all the class
allegations, asserting 17 affirmative defenses, bringing
counterclaims against Chambers and his wife seeking compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees, and asking the trial court to
consolidate the action with Moses Cone's original lawsuit seeking
payment of the $14,358.14 bill.
Shortly after Moses Cone filed its answer and counterclaim, Robin
D. Hayes sought to intervene as a Plaintiff, individually and as a
class representative. More than a year later, on Sept. 27, 2013,
the trial court ordered that further consideration of the motion to
intervene should be delayed until after the Court rules on the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
On July 2, 2014, the case was assigned to a new judge and
thereafter a status conference was held at which the parties agreed
to stay further proceedings in the case until the Court issued an
opinion on related matters in Hefner v. Mission Hosp., Inc. The
plaintiff's claims in Hefner eventually were ruled moot when the
defendant hospital in that case unequivocally bound itself to seek
no payment of its bill from the plaintiff.
The instant case then was reactivated, and Chambers filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint. Moses Cone then dismissed its
claims for the remainder of its bill and on the following day,
filed a motion to dismiss the case. The trial court granted the
motion to dismiss on March 16, 2017. In addition, the trial court
went on to deny Hayes' motion to intervene, leaving no Plaintiff to
maintain the class action claims.
Chambers filed a notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the case. The Court of
Appeals concluded that because Chambers' bill was permanently
waived, he was no longer a member of the proposed class and,
therefore, it was appropriate to apply the general rule that an
appeal presenting a question that has become moot will be
dismissed. Because the class had not yet been certified and the
sole class representative no longer had a genuine personal interest
in the outcome of the case, the Court of Appeals concluded that it
need not determine if the class action is now moot based on the
conduct of Moses Cone or the public interest. The Court granted
discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. Section 7A-31 (2019).
Chambers' original class action complaint alleged that uninsured
patients receiving emergency medical care at Moses H. Cone Memorial
Hospital or another Cone Health hospital who were charged 100% of
the hospital's Chargemaster rates numbered at least hundreds, if
not thousands, of persons. Chambers further alleged (1) that there
were questions of law and fact common to the class, which
predominate over any questions affecting only individual class
members; (2) that he will fairly and adequately represent the
interests of the class; and (3) that a class action is the superior
method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims.
The complaint asserted the following: Most losses are modest in
relation to the expense and burden of individual prosecution of the
litigation necessitated by the Defendants' wrongful conduct. It
would be virtually impossible for the Class members to efficiently
redress their wrongs individually. Even if all the class members
could afford such individual litigation themselves, the court
system would benefit from a class action. Individualized
litigation would present the potential for inconsistent or
contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation would also
magnify the delay and expense to all parties and the court system
presented by the issues of the case.
However, before these allegations could be tested at the class
certification stage, Moses Cone sought to end the litigation by
dismissing its claims against Chambers and suspending its attempts
to collect the debt it alleged was owed by Chambers and his wife
for the emergency appendectomy.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina must now decide whether Moses
Cone's subsequent, unilateral action dismissing its claims against
Chambers and his wife and ceasing all other attempts to collect the
debt, prior to certification of the class in Chambers's declaratory
judgment action, renders the entire class action moot.
Following the logic of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision
in Richardson v. Bledsoe, the North Carolina Supreme Court holds
that the relation back doctrine may be applied to relate a now-moot
individual claim back to the date of the class action complaint
when the event that moots the Plaintiff's claim occurs before he
has had a fair opportunity to seek class certification and provided
that the Plaintiff has not unduly delayed in litigating the motion
for class certification. Therefore, when satisfaction of the
Plaintiff's individual claim occurs before the court can reasonably
be expected to rule on the class certification motion, the
Plaintiff's stake in the litigation is not extinguished, and the
case is not moot.
The North Carolina Supreme Court concludes that a remand to the
trial court to apply the appropriate legal standard is warranted.
The Supreme Court's holding recognizes a narrow exception to the
doctrine of mootness when a named plaintiff's individual claim
becomes moot before the plaintiff has had a fair opportunity to
pursue class certification and has otherwise acted without undue
delay regarding class certification. In these limited
circumstances, the named Plaintiff's claim relates back to the
filing of the complaint for mootness purposes, and he retains the
legal capacity to pursue class certification and class-wide relief,
even though his individual claim may have been satisfied. The
decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is
remanded for further proceedings, the North Carolina Supreme Court
rules.
A full-text copy of the North Carolina Supreme Court's June 5, 2020
Opinion is available at https://is.gd/13sR02 from Leagle.com.
Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by John F. Bloss --
jbloss@greensborolaw.com -- and Barry L. Kramer Law Offices, by
Barry L. Kramer, Esq., admitted pro hac vice, for
plaintiff-appellant.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, by Philip J. Mohr --
philip.mohr@wbd-us.com -- and Brent F. Powell --
brent.powell@wbd-us.com -- for defendant-appellees The Moses Cone
Memorial Hospital and The Moses Cone Memorial Hospital
Corporation.
MOUNTAIRE CORP: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Cuppels Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, GARY and ANNA-MARIE CUPPELS individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MOUNTAIRE CORPORATION,
MOUNTAIRE FARMS INC., and MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC.,
Defendants, C.A. No. S18C-06-009 CAK (Del. Super.), Judge Craig A.
Karsnitz of the Superior Court of Delaware denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss.
On June 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
complaint against Mountaire Corp. ("MC"), an Arkansas corporation,
Mountaire Farms Inc. ("MFI"), a Delaware corporation, and Mountaire
Farms of Delaware, Inc. ("MFODI"), a Delaware corporation. On July
20, 2018, the Defendants filed, inter alia, a Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure for lack of personal jurisdiction over MC.
On Oct. 12, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. On
Oct. 26, 2018, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal
jurisdiction over MC.
In an Order dated Aug. 22, 2018 and clarified on Nov. 7, 2018, the
Court stayed discovery in the case, pending disposition of, inter
alia, the Motion. On February 22, 2019, the Court reopened
discovery for the limited purpose of deciding whether MC has
sufficient contacts with Delaware to permit the Court to exercise
personal jurisdiction over it.
After a stay occasioned by an unsuccessful attempt at mediation,
the Court, on Nov. 26, 2019, ordered counsel for the parties to
notify it if the Motion was ripe for adjudication. Subsequently
counsel for the parties informed me that there was disagreement on
the issue of ripeness of the Motion.
In a Jan. 9, 2020 Pretrial Scheduling Order, Judge Karznitz ordered
that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction over Defendant
MC be completed by July 1, 2020, and that MC not be required to
file an Answer until thereafter. On January 29, Defendants MFI and
MFODI filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint. The issue of
personal jurisdiction over MC is now finally ripe for adjudication,
more than two years since the Complaint was filed.
In their Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs assert claims against
MC, MFI and MFODI, jointly and severally, for alleged negligence,
gross negligence, recklessness, negligence per se, nuisance,
trespass, and unjust enrichment. These claims stem from the
Plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants owned, operated and
managed a chicken processing plant in Millsboro, Delaware
("Facility") and caused unsafe quantities of wastewater and sludge
generated, treated and/or disposed of at that plant to be released
on lands near the Plaintiffs' residences.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, individually and
collectively: (1) participated in a material way in owning and
operating the Facility and associated real property used for
disposal of wastewater and sludge over the relevant time period;
(2) through their individual and joint direction, control, and
coordination developed, implemented, and carried out the projects,
policies and procedures that proximately caused the pollution and
damages detailed herein; (3) hired, fired, managed, supervised, and
instructed employees, agents and contactors involved in the conduct
described herein; (4) promoted and marketed the "Mountaire" brand
and products in Delaware; (5) collectively and individually
transacted business, solicited business, sold service and products,
and entered into contracts causing them to earn revenue directly or
indirectly from such business activities conducted in and directed
at Delaware; and (6) otherwise engaged in conduct that contributed
to the pollution and damages described therein.
In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek remediation of
property, groundwater and drinking water wells damaged by the
Defendants' wastewater and sludge disposal, the creation of a
public water system, the implementation of various improvements to
the wastewater treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and both
compensatory and punitive damages.
With regard to personal jurisdiction over MC, the Plaintiffs argue
that, although MC is an Arkansas corporation, MC has sufficient
contacts with Delaware to support personal jurisdiction over it
under both the Delaware long-arm statute and federal Constitutional
Due Process protections. As an additional theory of personal
jurisdiction, the Amended Complaint alleges that MFODI acted as
MC's agent, and that MC as principal is liable for the acts of
MFODI as its agent in Delaware.
The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to show two types of contacts:
MC's own contacts with Delaware, or MC's contacts with Delaware
through MFODI as its agent. The essential element of personal
jurisdiction over MC under both the Delaware long-arm statute and
the federal Due Process Clause is a relationship between the
Plaintiffs' claims and MC's purposeful contacts with Delaware.
The Court may also exercise personal jurisdiction over MC as the
corporate parent MFODI, a Delaware corporation, based upon
jurisdiction over that subsidiary on the theory that MFODI was
acting as agent for MC. To succeed under the agency theory, the
Plaintiffs must show that the parent corporation dominates the
activities of the subsidiary. The control must be actual,
participatory, and total. In addition, under standard principles
of agency law, MFODI's actions may be imputed to MC. To support
personal jurisdiction, MFODI must have acted within the scope of
its agency and intended, at least in part, to serve MC's interests,
and MC must have directed, authorized, or known of MFODI's
actions.
The Delaware long-arm statute confers personal jurisdiction over MC
as a nonresident Defendant where MC has taken certain actions
enumerated in the statute in Delaware either in person or through
an agent. In addition, the Plaintiffs' claims must arise out of
those actions taken by MC in Delaware; i.e., tge Plaintiffs' claims
must relate to the particular jurisdictional grounds alleged under
the statute. In Judge Karznitz's view, MC's actions in Delaware
are numerous and relate to several enumerated sections of the
statute. The Plaintiffs' claims arise from one or more of those
actions. There is a nexus between the Plaintiffs' claims and MC's
actions in Delaware. The Plaintiffs have demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that MC's actions in Delaware set in
motion a series of events that could give rise to their claims.
The Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over MC under the
Delaware long-arm statute.
MC's contacts with the State of Delaware exceeded minimum contacts;
they were numerous and purposeful. The Plaintiffs' claims arise
from one or more of the Delaware actions giving rise to those
contacts. There is a nexus between the Plaintiffs' claims and MC's
purposeful contacts with Delaware. The Court therefore has
personal jurisdiction over MC under the federal Due Process
Clause.
Assuming arguendo that MC is not subject to personal jurisdiction
in its own right, it may nonetheless be subject to personal
jurisdiction as principal if its wholly owned subsidiary, MFODI, a
Delaware corporation, has taken actions as its agent giving rise to
the Plaintiffs' claims. However, in no jurisdiction, particularly
in Delaware, does a court lightly disregard the separateness of
corporate family entities for jurisdictional (or other) purposes.
MC purposefully established MFODI and MFI in order to obtain the
multiple benefits that derive from the corporate structure, and
corporate formalities should not be cavalierly disregarded.
The Judge finds that the Plaintiffs point to the evidence to
demonstrate that MC "controls" MFODI for purposes of personal
jurisdiction. Among other things, since 2000, the overlap of
directors between MC and MFODI has been 100%, and the overlap of
officers between MC and MFODI has been 75%.50 MC's board of
directors has designated Ronald Cameron, MC's Chairman and
President, as the sole proxy of all subsidiaries. Since 2001, MC's
stockholders have reviewed and approved the actions of Ronald
Cameron, as sole proxy for the subsidiaries, including MFODI, at
every annual stockholder meeting of stockholders.
The Plaintiffs also point to the evidence to demonstrate that MC
"expressly directed" MFODI for purposes of personal jurisdiction.
Among other things, MC directed MFODI how to address and manage
environmental issues of wastewater and sludge. It is reflected in
MC Executive Committee meeting minutes. In 2002, the MC Executive
Committee reviewed the "Delaware groundwater situation" and
conferred about a meeting "with the EPA to discuss nitrate levels"
scheduled for a few weeks later. In 2003, the MC Executive
Committee discussed "Delaware sludge disposal needs" including
completing permitting processes and acquiring more land. In 2011,
the MC Executive Committee discussed the "completion of waste water
upgrades at Millsboro" planned for 2012. In September 2017, the MC
Executive Committee approved more capital projects including
Millsboro wastewater, but they left open the amount of the
investment. In December 2017, the MC Executive Committee discussed
an "estimated upgrade cost" of $26.5 Million for Millsboro
wastewater. On June 6 and 7, 2018, the MC Executive Committee
approved a "Millsboro WW treatment plant" upgrade with a total cost
of over $110 Million.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Karsnitz denied the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 18, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://is.gd/zjQ35E from
Leagle.com.
Chase T. Brockstedt, Esq. -- chase@bmbde.com -- and Stephen A.
Spence, Esq., Baird Mandalas Brockstedt, LLC, 1413 Savannah Road,
Suite 1, Lewes, DE 19958, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
Philip C. Federico, Esq. and Brent P. Ceryes, Esq., Schochor,
Federico and Staton, P.A., 1211 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD
21202, Admitted Pro Hac Vice, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
John C. Phillips, Jr., Esq. -- jackphillips@ppoalaw.com -- and Lisa
C. McLaughlin, Esq., Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, 1200 North Broom
Street, Wilmington, DE 19806, Attorneys for Defendants.
F. Michael Parkowski, Esq. -- mparkowski@pgslegal.com -- Michael W.
Teichman, Esq. and Elio Battista, Jr., Esq., Parkowski, Guerke &
Swayze, P.A., 1105 North Market Street, 19th Floor, Wilmington, DE
19801, Attorneys for Defendants.
James R. Wedeking, Esquire -- JWEDEKING@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin
LLP, 1501 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005, Admitted Pro Hac
Vice, Attorneys for Defendants.
MUSKEGON FAMILY: Melton Seeks to Certify WARN Act Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as KARISHA MELTON, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. MUSKEGON FAMILY CARE,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00141-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court for an order:
a. certifying a class, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, comprised of:
"the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated former
employees (i) who worked at or reported to Defendant's
Facility who were terminated without cause within 90 days
of February 14, 2020, or were terminated without cause as
the reasonably foreseeable consequence of the mass layoff
and/or plant closing ordered by Defendant on or about
February 14, 2020, (ii) who were not provided advance
written notice of their terminations, (iii) who are
"affected employees" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
2101(a)(5), and (iv) who have not filed a timely request
to opt-out of the class;
b. appointing Raisner Roupinian LLP as Class Counsel;
c. appointing Plaintiff as the Class Representative;
d. approving the form and manner of Notice; and
e. such further relief as this Court may deem proper.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Worker Adjustment Retraining
and Notification Act.
The Defendant offers dental general services for all ages, ranging
from regular hygiene to emergency needs.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff and the putative Class is:
Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP
270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 221-1747
Facsimile: (212) 221-1747
E-mail: rsr@raisnerroupinian.com
jar@raisnerroupinian.com
MYRIAD GENETICS: Securities Class Action Ongoing in Utah
--------------------------------------------------------
Myriad Genetics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit entitled, In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation
(No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB).
On September 27, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the District of Utah,
against the Company, its former President and Chief Executive
Officer, Mark C. Capone, and its Interim President and Chief
Executive Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, R. Bryan Riggsbee ("Defendants").
On February 21, 2020, the plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint, which added the Company’s Executive Vice President of
Clinical Development, Bryan M. Dechairo, as an additional
Defendant.
This action, captioned In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation (No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB), is premised upon allegations
that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business, operations, and acquisitions.
The lead plaintiff seeks the payment of damages allegedly sustained
by it and the purported class by reason of the allegations set
forth in the amended complaint, plus interest, and legal and other
costs and fees.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Myriad said, "Due to the nature of this matter and inherent
uncertainties, it is not possible to provide an evaluation of the
likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or an estimate of the amount
or range of potential loss, if any."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., a molecular diagnostic company, focuses on
developing and marketing novel predictive medicine, personalized
medicine, and prognostic medicine tests worldwide. Myriad Genetics,
Inc. was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Salt Lake City,
Utah.
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Lehman Suit v. Ohr Pharma Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase 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 company continues to defend the class
action headed by George Lehman and Insured Benefit Plans, Inc.
On February 14, 2018, plaintiff Jeevesh Khanna, commenced an action
in the Southern District of New York, against Ohr and several
current and former officers and directors of Ohr Pharmaceutical
(Ohr), alleging that they violated federal securities laws between
June 24, 2014 and January 4, 2018.
On August 7, 2018, the lead plaintiffs, now George Lehman and
Insured Benefit Plans, Inc., filed an amended complaint, stating
the class period to be April 8, 2014 through January 4, 2018.
The plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek
to maintain the action as a class action and to recover damages on
behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Ohr common stock during the putative class period and
purportedly suffered financial harm as a result.
The Company and the individuals dispute these claims and intend to
defend the matter vigorously.
On September 17, 2018, Ohr filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 20, 2019, the Court entered an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 23, 2019, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of that order dismissing the action and
other related orders by the Court, and the plaintiffs filed their
appellate brief with respect to such matters with the Court on
February 5, 2020.
Scheduled briefing on plaintiffs' appeal has concluded, and oral
argument is calendared for September 21, 2020.
NeuBase said, "This litigation could result in substantial costs
and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which
could harm the Company’s business and the value of its common
stock."
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.
NEUBASE THERAPEUTICS: Wheby Class Action vs Ohr Pharma Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuBase 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 Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc. continues to
defend a class action entitled, Wheby v. Ohr Pharmaceutical, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA.
On March 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for District of Delaware naming as
defendants Ohr Pharmaceutical (Ohr) and its board of directors,
Legacy NeuBase, and Merger Sub, captioned Wheby v. Ohr
Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00541-UNA (the
"Wheby Action").
The plaintiffs in the Wheby Action allege that the preliminary
joint proxy/prospectus statement filed by Ohr with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2019 contained false and
misleading statements and omitted material information in violation
of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and
further that the individual defendants are liable for those alleged
misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
The complaint in the Wheby Action has not been served on, nor was
service waived by, any of the named defendants in that action.
The action seeks, among other things, to rescind the Ohr
Acquisition or an award of damages, and an award of attorneys’
and experts' fees and expenses.
The defendants dispute the claims raised in the Wheby Action.
Management believes that the likelihood of an adverse decision from
the sole remaining action is unlikely; however, the litigation
could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's
resources and attention, which could harm the Company's business
and the value of the Company's common stock.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc., a biotechnology company, engages in the
development of various antisense therapies to address genetic
diseases in the United States. The company offers gene silencing
therapies, including the proprietary PATrOL platform, a
peptide-nucleic acid antisense oligonucleotide for genetic diseases
caused by mutant proteins, including the Huntington's disease and
myotonic dystrophy, as well as various other genetic disorders.
NeuBase Therapeutics, Inc. is headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
On July 12, 2019, NeuBase completed the merger deal with Ohr
Pharmaceutical.
NEW JERSEY: Female Inmates' Sexual Abuse Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Muscavage, writing for my central jersey, reports that inmates
at New Jersey's only female prison that a federal report said was
plagued by rampant sexual abuse and misconduct for years can
proceed with a class-action lawsuit, a state judge has ruled.
State Superior Court Judge Michael O'Neill's opinion, written in
July and ordered unsealed, acknowledged that a Department of
Justice report released in the spring buttressed the inmates'
claims that they were forced to live in a hostile environment,
regardless of whether they experienced abuse firsthand.
"The DOJ report sheds new light on, and requires a fresh look at,
the hostile living environment claims set forth in the complaint,"
O'Neill wrote, and lends "considerable support to the overriding
(predominant) contentions set forth in the complaint."
"While it is true that the DOJ report itself is not admissible in
evidence, that fact does not mandate that this court turn a blind
eye to its contents," he added.
The suit filed by two longtime inmates names the state Department
of Corrections and seeks unspecified punitive and compensatory
damages.
The DOJ report released in April alleged the state corrections
department violated inmates' constitutional rights by failing to
protect them from a culture of "severe and prevalent abuse" and
that officials failed to take action despite being aware of
systemic problems.
The 31-page report charged that Edna Mahan Correctional Facility
for Women fails to keep prisoners safe from sexual abuse by
staffers.
"Edna Mahan suffers from a 'culture of acceptance' of sexual abuse,
which has enabled abuse to continue despite years of notice and
efforts towards change," the report stated.
The report found that corrections officers, despite being aware of
abuse, did not report incidents.
Several corrections officers at the prison have pleaded guilty to,
or have been convicted of, sexual abuse and misconduct in recent
years.
The class action suit claims that the prison is rife with "rampant
abusive conduct, which in and of itself constitutes a severe and
pervasive environment," and that correctional employees operate in
"a dehumanizing culture of harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation."
Inmates at Edna Mahan "live under the constant terror and
intimidation of being forced to endure sexual discrimination,
harassment and abuse at the hands of supervisors acting with
complete impunity, merely in order for the inmates to survive on a
daily basis in custody," according to the suit.
A different state judge denied the inmates' class-action bid last
year, but a state appeals court asked O'Neill to take a new look at
the case this spring considering the DOJ report. The appeals court
will now review O'Neill's ruling once both sides have filed briefs,
attorneys for the inmates said on Aug. 18.
In a statement, attorneys for the Stark & Stark and Barry, Corrado,
Grassi & Gillian-Schwartz firms said the ruling "represents an
important step towards addressing the problems at the prison that
permitted predatory corrections officers to operate unchecked for
years."
The attorneys said the work is not done "until the broken policies
and culture at the facility are fixed and until the women subjected
to this toxic and abusive environment are compensated for the
damage it wrought."
Attorneys representing the state corrections department have argued
that class certification should be denied because not all inmates
can establish firsthand knowledge of sexual misconduct and
discrimination.
Oliver Barry, one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the
class-action case, said discovery will continue after O'Neill's
ruling.
The question comes down to what the appellate court decides to do
next, he said.
There is a separate class-action lawsuit against the state
Department of Corrections alleging a culture of abuse at Edna Mahan
that was given the green light by O'Neill in the same ruling.
"The ruling was almost identical and we were given the green light
to proceed," said Mark Frost of Mark B. Frost & Associates, an
attorney working on the separate class-action case. "Of course we
are pleased with the decision of the court and we look forward to
successfully litigating this important case on behalf of the abused
women at the facility which took place over a period of years."
[GN]
NEW YORK: Governor Gives Commercial Gyms Green Light to Reopen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Civiletti, writing for RiverheadLOCAL, reports that new
coronavirus infections, hospitalizations and deaths continue to
decline in New York, reaching their lowest rates since mid-March,
when the outbreak began spreading in the state.
Across the country, new cases remained under 50,000 as of Aug. 23,
with current hospitalizations in the U.S. steadily declining. There
were 6,922 COVID-19 fatalities in the U.S., according to the COVID
Tracking Project.
Gov. Andrew Cuomo renewed his repeated warnings to New Yorkers not
to become complacent -- because flu season, accompanied by a
probably second wave of the coronavirus, is just around the
corner.
There were 26 new COVID-19 deaths as of Aug. 23 in New York State,
which saw 3,249 new confirmed cases as of Aug. 23. There were two
coronavirus fatalities in Suffolk County as of Aug. 23 and 271 new
confirmed cases.
Meanwhile, the governor gave commercial gyms the green light to
reopen as of Aug. 24 -- rendering moot the motion for an injunction
filed in a class action lawsuit brought against the governor by a
coalition of gym owners. The lawsuit lives on but the motion for an
injunction was withdrawn. [GN]
NEW YORK: Restaurant Owners Mull Class Action Against Mayor
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Stabile, writing for FOXBusiness, reports that New York
City Mayor Bill de Blasio admitted on Aug. 21 that he has no plan
to reopen indoor dining any time soon, so restaurant owners like
Massimo Felici are banding together to consider filing a
class-action lawsuit against the mayor.
Felici, owner of Staten Island's Vinum Restaurant and Wine Bar,
told "Fox & Friends Weekend" anchor Jedediah Bila that de Blasio's
lack of planning will "devastate" the industry, especially with the
looming threat of being completely shut down once reopened in the
fall.
"It will devastate us," he said. "We're not going to survive the
year, for sure. If that happens, very few of us will be able to
survive that. We barely survived March, April and May, and now
we're surviving because of the outdoor [dining]."
More than 100 restaurants are now involved in fighting against de
Blasio and New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's orders with potential legal
action which may be the only option left to keep businesses alive,
according to Felici.
De Blasio also mentioned holding the reopening of indoor dining
until a coronavirus vaccine hits the market which Felici said is
"scary" for business owners to hear.
"That is probably the worst thing a mayor can say," he said.
Felici told Bila that he feels fortunate to be a Staten Island
restaurant owner since there's more space for outdoor dining and
said his restaurants are doing 60 to 70% of business at best. [GN]
NEXT BIO-RESEARCH: Crescent City Sues Over Unsolicited Junk Faxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRESCENT CITY SURGICAL CENTRE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC v. NEXT
BIO-RESEARCH SERVICES, LLC d/b/a NEXT MOLECULAR ANALYTICS, Case No.
2:20-cv-02369-SSV-MBN (E.D. La., Aug. 27, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's unlawful marketing campaign, including sending of
unsolicited junk faxes, that violates the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 and the
regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant engaged in blasting
thousands of junk faxes to consumers to advertise its goods and/or
services without complying with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements.
The Plaintiff says he received the Defendant's junk faxes
concerning its "COVID-19 and Influenza Testing" services without
his prior express invitation or permission to receive those junk
faxes. As a result, the Defendant has imposed disruption,
annoyance, and cost on the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Defendant and its employees from sending any
further noncompliant faxed advertisements to any person or entity,
cost of litigation, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Next Bio-Research Services, LLC, doing business as Next Molecular
Analytics, offers integrated bio-molecular analysis services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Preston L. Hayes, Esq.
Ryan P. Monsour, Esq.
Barry W. Sartin, Esq.
CHEHARDY SHERMAN WILLIAMS MURRAY RECILE STAKELUM
& HAYES LLP
1 Galleria Blvd., Ste. 1100
Metairie, LA 70001-2033
Tel: (504) 833-5600
Website: http://www.chehardy.com/
NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nextier Oilfield Solutions 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
class action suits related to its merger with C&J Energy Services,
Inc.
On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of
merger (the "Merger Agreement") among the Company, C&J Energy
Services, Inc. (C&J) and King Merger Sub Corp. ("Merger Sub").
In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby the following complaints have been filed: (i)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J
stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder
on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding
defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members
of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii)
one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported
stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other
stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or
affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of
directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company
on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company
(excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against
members of the Company's board of directors.
The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v.
C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D.
Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.) (collectively,
the "Stockholder Actions").
In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants
violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and
abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration
Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in
connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or
misstated material information.
The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the C&J Merger, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.
C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws;
however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the
C&J Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder
Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and
the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain
supplemental disclosures in connection with the C&J Merger.
Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods,
Bushansky and Palumbos actions voluntarily dismissed their claims
as moot on October 16, 2019, October 29, 2019 and November 20,
2019, respectively.
Neither of the remaining Stockholder Actions have been served or
otherwise necessitate further response, but the Company continues
to believe that the allegations therein lack merit and no
supplemental disclosures were required under applicable law, and
intends to defend itself vigorously should service be sought and
the claims become active.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The
Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as
developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities.
Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States.
The company is based in Houston, Texas.
NOBLE ENERGY: Curtis Challenges Proposed $5-Bil. Sale to Chevron
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., JEFFREY L. BERENSON, JAMES E.
CRADDOCK, BARBARA J. DUGANIER, THOMAS J. EDELMAN, HOLLI C. LADHANI,
DAVID L. STOVER, SCOTT D. URBAN, WILLIAM T. VAN KLEEF, MARTHA B.
WYRSCH, CHEVRON CORPORATION and CHELSEA MERGER SUB, INC., Case No.
653868/2020 (N.Y. Sup., New York Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), arises from
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Chevron will acquire
Noble Energy.
On July 20, 2020, Chevron announced that it has entered into a
definitive agreement with Noble Energy, Inc., to acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Noble Energy in an all-stock transaction
valued at $5 billion, or $10.38 per share. Based on Chevron's
closing price on July 17, 2020, and under the terms of the
agreement, Noble Energy shareholders will receive 0.1191 shares of
Chevron for each Noble Energy share. The total enterprise value,
including debt, of the transaction is $13 billion.
The terms of the proposed transaction were memorialized in a July
21, 2020 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form
8-K attaching the definitive agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant
to the terms of the proposed transaction, Noble Energy shareholders
will receive 0.1191 shares of Chevron for each Noble Energy share
they own. This implies a per share value of $10.38 for Noble Energy
based on Chevron's closing price on July 17, 2020 of $91.54 per
share. On August 11, 2020, Chevron filed a Registration Statement
on Form S-4 with the SEC in support of the proposed transaction.
According to the complaint, the dubious nature of the proposed
transaction is laid bare considering the existence of sharp price
fluctuations of Chevron common stock since the announcement of the
deal. The merger consideration is comprised entirely of Chevron
common stock exchanged at a fixed exchange ratio of 0.1191 which
means that Noble Energy stockholders will receive 0.1191 shares of
Chevron common stock as a portion of the merger consideration in
exchange for each of their Noble Energy shares, regardless of
Chevron's stock price at the close of the transaction.
The Plaintiff contends that the failure of the Company's Board of
Directors to negotiate a collar to establish parameters to minimize
the impact of stock price fluctuations on the value of the
consideration payable to shareholders has proved extremely
prejudicial to Noble Energy stockholders. On July 17, 2020, the
last trading day before the deal was announced, Chevron closed at
$91.54 per share. Since that time, Chevron's per share price has
fluctuated significantly and has recently traded as low as $81.51
per share, which would translate into a merger consideration of
only approximately $9.71 per share.
In addition, the proposed transaction is unfair and undervalued for
a number of reasons, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff alleges
that the Registration Statement describes an insufficient sales
process in which the Board rushed through an inadequate "sales
process" in which the only end goal was a sale to Chevron. The
Plaintiff adds that it appears as though the Board has entered into
the proposed transaction to procure for themselves and senior
management of the Company significant and immediate benefits with
no thought to the Company's public stockholders.
In further violation of their fiduciary duties, the Defendants
caused to be filed the materially deficient Registration Statement
on August 11, 2020, with SEC in an effort to solicit stockholders
to vote their Noble Energy shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, according to the complaint. The Registration Statement
is materially deficient, deprives Noble Energy stockholders of the
information they need to make an intelligent, informed and rational
decision of whether to vote their shares in favor of the Proposed
Transaction, and is thus in breach of the Defendants fiduciary
duties. The Registration Statement omits and/or misrepresents
material information concerning, among other things: (a) the sales
process and in particular certain conflicts of interest for
management; (b) the financial projections for Noble Energy and
Chevron, provided by Noble Energy and Chevron to the Company's
financial advisor J.P. Morgan Securities LLC for use in its
financial analyses; and (c) the data and inputs underlying the
financial valuation analyses that purport to support the fairness
opinions provided by the Company's financial advisor, J.P. Morgan.
Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Noble Energy is an independent
energy company that engages in the acquisition, exploration,
development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and natural
gas liquids worldwide.
Chevron Corporation engages in integrated energy, chemicals, and
petroleum operations worldwide. Chelsea Merger, Inc. is a Wyoming
corporation and a direct, Chevron owned subsidiary of Chevron
created to effectuate the proposed transaction.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
240 Mineola Boulevard
Mineola, NY 11501
Telephone: (516) 741-4977
Facsimile: (561) 741-0626
E-mail: jbrodsky@brodskysmith.com
NORANDA INCOME: Deal on Sulphur Trioxide Class Suit Gets Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noranda Income Fund (TSX:NIF.UN) (the "Fund") on Aug. 19 disclosed
that the Superior Court of Quebec has approved the agreement
entered into on May 14, 2020, in the class action relating to a
sulphur trioxide emission. The emission occurred following an
accidental equipment breakdown at the Salaberry-de-Valleyfield
processing facility on August 9, 2004.
"We are pleased that the agreement has been approved and that the
proposed compensation terms are to the satisfaction of all
stakeholders involved," said Liana Centomo, Chief Executive Officer
of Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited ("CEZinc"), the Fund's
Manager.
The agreement provides for CEZinc to pay $1.68 million to go
towards individual compensation to defined categories of class
members as per the terms of the settlement. The parties have agreed
that an amount will be used for general environmental remediation
purposes, the details of which will be approved by the court at a
later date.
The amount will be disbursed without admission of responsibility
and will be used to pay members' claims, class counsel fees and
expenses incurred. This settlement agreement has no material impact
on CEZinc and funds required will be covered by its insurance
policies.
Noranda Income Fund is an income trust whose units trade on the
Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol "NIF.UN". Noranda Income
Fund owns the electrolytic zinc processing facility and ancillary
assets (the "Processing Facility") located in
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec. The Processing Facility is the
second-largest zinc processing facility in North America and the
largest zinc processing facility in eastern North America, where
the majority of zinc customers are located. It produces refined
zinc metal and various by-products from sourced zinc concentrates.
The Processing Facility is operated and managed by Canadian
Electrolytic Zinc Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Glencore
Canada Corporation. Further information about Noranda Income Fund
can be found at: www.norandaincomefund.com.
For further information, please contact:
Paul Einarson
Chief Financial Officer of Canadian Electrolytic Zinc Limited,
Noranda Income Fund's Manager
Tel: 514-745-9380
info@norandaincomefund.com [GN]
NOVATION COMPANIES: Appeal in NJ Carpenters' Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Novation 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 an appeal from the court's order
approving the settlement of the class action lawsuit initiated by
the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund is pending.
On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New
Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated. Defendants in the case included NovaStar
Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC") and NovaStar Mortgage, Inc.
("NMI"), wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Company, and NMFC's
individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by
the Company ("affiliated defendants") and several unaffiliated
investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On June 16, 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the
purported class members.
On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011, with
leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on May
16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to dismiss.
On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed plaintiff's second amended
complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. Plaintiff
filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Appellate Court").
On March 1, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the Appellate
Court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to sue
on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had not
invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to the
lower court for further proceedings.
On April 23, 2013 plaintiff filed its memorandum with the lower
court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015, the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.
On March 8, 2017, the affiliated defendants and all other parties
executed an agreement to settle the action, with the contribution
of the affiliated defendants to the settlement fund being paid by
their insurance carriers. The court certified a settlement class
and granted preliminary approval to the settlement on May 10, 2017.
One member of the settlement class objected to the settlement and
sought a stay of the final settlement approval hearing on the
ground that it did not receive notice of the settlement and had no
opportunity to timely opt out of the class.
After the court rejected the motion for a stay, the objector filed
an appeal and requested a stay of the district court proceedings
pending disposition of the appeal. The court of appeals denied the
temporary stay of the district court proceedings and on October 19,
2018 dismissed the appeal as moot.
Following the court of appeals' denial of the objector's petition
for rehearing, the district court on March 7, 2019 held a fairness
hearing. On March 8, 2019, the district court issued a memorandum
and order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and dismissing the action with prejudice.
Following entry of judgment, the objector filed a notice of appeal
on March 26, 2019 and their opening brief was filed on June 28,
2019.
The defendants answered on September 27, 2019, and the objector
replied on October 18, 2019. Oral argument was held on February 19,
2020.
Novation said, "Assuming the settlement approval becomes final,
which is expected, the Company will incur no loss. The Company
believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and, if the settlement approval does not become final,
expects them to defend the case vigorously."
Novation Companies, Inc., through its subsidiary, Healthcare
Staffing, Inc., provides outsourced health care staffing and
related services primarily to Community Service Boards in Georgia.
It also owns a portfolio of mortgage securities. The company was
formerly known as NovaStar Financial, Inc. and changed its name to
Novation Companies, Inc. in May 2012. Novation Companies, Inc. was
founded in 1996 and is based in Kansas City, Missouri.
NSMG SHARED: $2.2MM Deal in Uschold Labor Suit Gets Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM USCHOLD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NSMG SHARED
SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01039-JSC (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (i) granted in part the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees; and (ii) granted
their motion for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement agreement.
Jose Almendarez, Tyrone Dangerfield, Tiana Naples, and William
Uschold filed the state law wage-and-hour action on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated against their employer,
NSMG. The Plaintiffs allege that NSMG violated California law in
its operation of a commission payment system, among other
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, reimbursement for necessary and
reasonable business expenses, statutory penalties, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and other
relief the court may deem appropriate," as well as civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").
Defendant NSMG is a limited liability corporation organized under
Delaware law; the company maintains its principal place of business
in Houston Texas. It employs individuals who provide funeral and
burial related services throughout the Bay Area. The Plaintiffs
are former employees of NSMG.
The class consists of all employees paid commissions by the
Defendant at any time from Jan. 17, 2014 through Oct. 8, 2019, the
date of preliminary approval of the settlement. There are 449
class members. As of Feb. 25, 2020, none of the class members have
opted out, and only one class member has objected to the
settlement.
The Defendant agrees to pay $2.2 million to the Settlement
Administrator, who will deposit that amount in a qualified
settlement fund. The following will be deducted from the Gross
Settlement Amount: (1) payment of $33,000 to the Labor Workforce
Development Agency ("LWDA") to settle the PAGA claim asserted in
the FAC; (2) the Settlement Administrator's fees and costs, not
exceeding $9,000.00; (3) the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees (not
exceeding $736,200 (representing one-third of the Gross Settlement
Amount)) and costs (not exceeding $20,000); (4) the Defendant's
estimated share of applicable payroll taxes to be paid on the
individual settlement payments; and (5) Service Awards of $2,000 to
each of the four named Plaintiffs. The remainder following those
deductions constitutes the Net Settlement Amount from which
individual class members will be paid.
In support of final approval, the Plaintiffs submit the declaration
of Jarrod Salinas, Case Manager for Settlement Administrator
Simpluris, who attests that as of Feb. 25, 2020, the Net Settlement
Amount is estimated to be $1,308,298.17. That amount reflects the
Gross Settlement Amount ($2.2 million) minus the following: (1)
attorneys' fees and costs not to exceed $736,200 and $20,000,
respectively; (2) $7,500 in Settlement Administrator fees; (3)
$8,000 in Service Awards; (4) $33,000 in PAGA penalties to the
LWDA; and (5) 87,001.83 in maximum employer payroll taxes.
Each class member will receive a pro-rata share of the Net
Settlement Amount based on the number of weeks the individual
worked compared to the number of weeks worked by all the class
members. One-third of each Class Settlement Payment is allocated
to wages, which are subject to all applicable wage laws, including
federal, state and local tax withholding and payroll taxes, and
will be reported on Form W-2. Mr. Salinas attests that as of Feb.
25, 2020, the highest individual settlement payment to be
distributed to the 449 class members is approximately $9,236.48 and
the average payment is approximately $2,913.80.
Simpluris mailed the Notice to the 449 class members on Nov. 15,
2019. As of Feb. 25, 2020, five Notices remain undeliverable
because Simpluris was unable to locate a current address.
Simpluris mailed the Attorneys' Fees Notice to class members on
Jan. 23, 2020. As of Feb. 25, 2020, Simpluris had "received no
requests for exclusion from the Settlement" or objections.
The class members agree to release the Defendant from all claims,
whether state or federal, arising at any point during the
"Settlement Period" (defined as Jan. 17, 2014 through the date of
preliminary approval -- Oct. 8, 2019) that are asserted in the
amended complaint or could have been asserted based on the same
nucleus of operative facts. In addition, the named Plaintiffs
agree to release all claims that were or could have been asserted
by the Plaintiffs which arise out of or relate in any way to their
employment with NSMG, and a general release of all claims that
arise prior to the last day of the Settlement Period. To
effectuate the general release, the Plaintiffs expressly waive and
relinquish all rights and benefits under California Civil Code
section 1542.
Magistrate Judge Corley granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval of the parties' class action settlement. In addition, the
Judge granted in part their motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
Specifically, the Judge awarded the following: $282,775 in
attorneys' fees; $12,428.44 in litigation costs; $2,000 each as
incentive awards to Plaintiffs Almendarez, Dangerfield, Naples, and
Uschold; and $7,500 to the Settlement Administrator.
In accordance with the Northern District's Procedural Guidance for
Class Action Settlements, within 21 days after the distribution of
the settlement funds and payment of attorneys' fees, the Class
Counsel will file "a Post-Distribution Accounting" that provides
the following: The total settlement fund, the total number of class
members, the total number of class members to whom notice was sent
and not returned as undeliverable, the number and percentage of
claim forms submitted, the number and percentage of opt-outs, the
number and percentage of objections, the average and median
recovery per claimant, the largest and smallest amounts paid to
class members, the method(s) of notice and the method(s) of payment
to class members, the number and value of checks not cashed, the
amounts distributed to each cy pres recipient, the administrative
costs, the attorneys' fees and costs, the attorneys' fees in terms
of percentage of the settlement fund, and the multiplier, if any.
The Class Counsel will summarize such information in an
easy-to-read chart that allows for quick comparisons with other
cases, and post the Post-Distribution Accounting, including the
easy-toread chart, on the settlement website --
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/forms/procedural-guidance-for-class-action-settlements/.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ygMfLj from Leagle.com.
NUNAVUT: Disputes Allegations in Cloughley Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rajnesh Sharma, writing for Nunavut News, reports that the
governments of Nunavut and the NWT have filed a statement of
defence denying any and all allegations of negligence pertaining to
the class-action lawsuit involving former teacher Maurice
Cloughley.
The statement of claim alleges that these governments -- the
defendants -- are responsible for the sexual abuse inflicted on
children and youth who Maurice Cloughley taught between 1969 and
1981. He had taught in the communities of Clyde River and Resolute
Bay.
However, the defendants are denying all allegations of sexual
assault or exploitation by Cloughley against the plaintiffs – his
former students.
The governments -- combined under the GNWT during the dates in
question because it was prior to the division of the territories --
have stated no assault or exploitation by the teacher was ever
disclosed to them at the time.
"Nor did the defendants, at any time, have knowledge of or cause to
suspect the existence of such behaviour by Mr. Cloughley," reads
the statement of defence.
The territorial governments have also stated if the plaintiffs
suffered any losses, damages or injury, it was "not caused by or
contributed to by any breach, fault or negligence" from them. The
statement claims "any such losses or damages were caused by some
pre-existing or intervening act or cause unrelated to the
allegations in the statement of claim."
Cloughley pleaded guilty to nine sexual offences during a mid-trial
plea bargain in 1996. He originally faced 22 counts. He was
sentenced to 10 years in prison.
In June, Justice Paul Bychok found the defendants owed the
plaintiffs, numbering at least 50, a fiduciary duty of care.
The defendants however, deny the existence of a fiduciary duty owed
to the plantiffs.
Contrary to the statement of claim, the actions of Cloughley "did
not occur within the scope of his employment and/or were contrary
to his work duties or responsibilities," according to the
territorial governments.
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation for the harm they
allege was inflicted. This includes pain and suffering, setbacks in
education and employment, and any expenses incurred for counselling
and costs of future counselling, said Alan Regel, one of the
plaintiffs' lawyers.
The defendants deny that plaintiffs are entitled to any damages.
Plaintiffs are being required to "strictly prove all claims for
damages" and provide particulars for any and all claims for
punitive damages, special damages and aggravated damages prior to
trial.
Regel said, "Because it is a class-action, we will deal with common
issues first such as if he (Cloughley) sexually assaulted any
students, is the government liable? Did they have safeguards in
place to prevent it?" [GN]
NXIVM: Keith Raniere Defends Defendant in Class Action Civil Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Whiting, writing for Bustle, reports that it's been over two
years since NXIVM leader Keith Raniere was arrested by Mexican
federal agents in Puerto Vallarta, where several members of the
group were about to embark on a "recommitment ceremony," understood
to mean group sex with the charismatic leader. Instead, Raniere was
extradited back to the US, where he would eventually face trial on
federal charges of child sex trafficking and conspiracy. The story
of the rise and fall of NXIVM and the self-help guru who helmed it
is captured in The Vow, a new nine part docu-series from HBO
premiering Aug. 23. But viewers shouldn't expect a tidy ending just
because so much time has passed. Despite his conviction over a year
ago in June 2019, Raniere is still sitting in a Brooklyn jail cell
awaiting sentencing.
The sentencing phase of Raniere's trial, initially scheduled for
last year, has been beset with at least three delays, several of
which are due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has prevented Raniere
from meeting with his lawyers and from being able to appear in open
court. That doesn't mean the case against him has been at a
complete standstill, however. Just recently, a federal judge denied
Raniere's request for a new trial, comprehensively declaring that
Raniere failed to demonstrate any of the testimony made against him
in the initial trial was false. Raniere also remains a defendant in
a class action civil suit filed by 80 former members of the sex
slavery cult who allege the organization was also a pyramid scheme.
One former member said she spent $145,000 over the years for
NXIVM's self-help classes.
But finally, there does seem to be some movement toward justice, at
least in the criminal proceedings against Raniere. A federal judge
rescheduled sentencing again, this time to be held on October 27 in
a courtroom that has been closed since March due to the pandemic.
He faces anywhere from 15 years to life in prison.
When the new HBO docuseries The Vow premieres on Aug. 23, former
NXIVM leader Nancy Salzman could potentially be tuning in from
home. Despite entering a guilty plea over a year ago in the
criminal case against her, the co-founder of the NXIVM cult has
been released on a $5 million bail bond since her July 2018
arrest.
Salzman, a psychiatric nurse and practitioner of hypnotic
therapies, helped leader Keith Raniere to establish the group that
would become NXIVM all the way back in 1998, when the stated
mission was self-improvement. By the time of Salzman's arrest,
though, NXIVM stood accused of sex trafficking, sexual slavery, and
forced branding of its female members. In Spring 2019, Salzman pled
guilty to racketeering, identity theft, and "altering records to
influence the outcome of a lawsuit against the organization,"
according to the New York Times.
Her sentencing was immediately scheduled for July 10th, but over a
year later, it still hasn't happened. Days before the proceedings,
a federal judge adjourned the hearing sine die, which means without
any specified date for resumption. In the meantime, Salzman has
mostly kept quiet, filing a few motions that would see the
conditions of her bail modified. To the request to have her ankle
bracelet homing device removed, for example, the court said no. To
a request to be allowed to have contact with her daughter, the
court was lenient.
That no date has been set for sentencing in over a year has led
some close watchers of the case to speculate that Salzman is
cooperating with prosecutors in cases against Raniere, the cult
kingpin who was convicted of sex trafficking and conspiracy last
summer, and perhaps against other high ranking members of NXIVM.
And Salzman is not the only defendant yet to be handed down a
prison term. Smallville actress and cult member Allison Mack, who
also pled guilty to racketeering, remains free on a $5 million bail
bond. Even Raniere has seen his own sentencing delayed due to the
coronavirus outbreak. [GN]
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Hall Sues Over Retention of Surplus Equity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tawanda Hall, Carolyn Miller, American Internet Group, LLC, Anthony
Akande, Curtis Lee and Coretha Lee, Marcus Byers and Kristina Govan
individually and all those similarly situated in the City of
Southfield v. Oakland County Treasurer Andrew Meisner, in his
official and individual capacities, Oakland County, Southfield
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative LLC, City of Southfield,
Frederick Zorn in his official and individual capacities,
Southfield Mayor Kenson Siver in his official and individual
capacities, Southfield Non-Profit Housing Corporation, Habitat for
Humanity of Oakland County Inc., Susan Ward-Witkowski in her former
official and individual capacities, Gerald Witokowski in his
official and individual capacities, Treasurer Irvin Lowenberg and
in his official and individual capacities, Mitchell Simon, and
E'Toile Libbett, Case No. 3:20-cv-12230-RHC-EAS (E.D. Mich., Aug.
18, 2020), arises from the Defendants' unconstitutional taking and
retention of the Plaintiffs' surplus equity.
The Plaintiffs and the class members were owners of real properties
in the City of Southfield.
According to the complaint, Oakland County and Treasurer Andrew
Meisner seized ownership of all the 138 properties formerly owned
by the Plaintiffs and class members, transferring all the real
estate to the City of Southfield for delinquent taxes. Most of the
Plaintiffs had entered into delinquent property installment
agreements and had made a payment to the Treasurer with the promise
that such payment would prevent tax foreclosure.
Oakland County is the Foreclosing Governmental Unit (FGU) that
foreclosed despite the existence of the delinquent property tax
payment plan agreements. The Plaintiffs contend that the conduct of
the Defendants was reckless and undertaken with complete
indifference to the Plaintiffs' federal rights to be free from
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, as applied against municipalities and those
acting under color of law.
The Plaintiffs both individually and as class representatives do
not contest the tax assessed or attempt to interfere with its
collection under state law but only seek compensation for the
taking of their equity/surplus equity and injuries other than tax
collection. The Plaintiffs, individually and as class
representatives, seek damages in excess of $75,000.
Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, LLC, is a
for-profit private corporation organized under the laws of the
State of Michigan. Southfield Non-profit Housing Corporation is a
501(c) 3 nonprofit corporation organized under the rules of the
Internal Revenue Service and incorporated in the State of
Michigan.
Habitat for Humanity of Oakland County Inc. is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit
corporation organized under the rules of the IRS incorporated as a
non-profit corporation and is incorporated in the State of
Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott F. Smith, Esq.
SCOTT F. SMITH LAW, PLLC
30833 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48334
Telephone: (248) 626-1962
E-mail: Smithsf.law@gmail.com
ON TRACK INNOVATIONS: EasyPark Card Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------
On Track Innovations Ltd. 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 related to EasyPark card.
In July 2019, the Company received a request, to allow a petitioner
to submit a class action, which concerns the petitioner's claims
that, inter alia, through the EasyPark card, drivers are permitted
to exceed the quota of permitted hours in accordance with the
instructions of various local authorities in Israel.
The Request was submitted against a company incorporated by the
buyer of the assets (including the parking activity) of the Israeli
subsidiaries of the Company (the "Company's Subsidiaries") and
against two other companies that operate technological means for
payment for public parking spaces scattered throughout the cities.
Since the majority of potential claims against the Company's
Subsidiaries relate to the period following the sale of the
Company's Subsidiaries' assets, including the parking activity, it
appears that the Company's exposure through this channel is
limited.
Furthermore, even if payment will be required, the buyer would be
liable for the majority of such payment. Therefore the Company will
not participate in such procedure at this stage.
On Track said, "Based on the assessment of the Company's external
legal counsel, the Company's management is of the opinion that the
exposure of the Company is low."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
On Track Innovations Ltd. designs, develops, and markets secure
contactless microprocessor-based smart card technology to address
the needs of a variety of markets. The Company has developed
product solutions for micropayments, mass transit ticketing,
parking, loyalty programs, and other applications.
OSMOTICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends Consolidated Suit in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals 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
putative consolidated class action suit in New Jersey.
On April 30, 2019, Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc was served with a
complaint in an action entitled Leo Shumacher, et al., v. Osmotica
Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset
County No. SOM-L-000540-19.
On May 10, 2019, a Complaint entitled Jeffrey Tello, et al., v.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey,
Somerset County No. SOM-L-000617-19 was filed in the same court as
the Shumacher action.
The complaints name Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, certain of its
directors and officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering as defendants in putative class actions alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
related to the disclosures contained in the registration statement
and prospectus used for the Company's initial public offering of
ordinary shares.
On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
consolidating the two actions, reiterating the previously pled
allegations and adding an additional individual defendant.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends
to vigorously defend against the action.
Osmotica said, "However, this litigation matter is still in an
early stage and there is no assurance that we will be successful in
our defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action,
which could adversely affect the Company's results of operations
and financial condition. At this time there is no loss that is
probable or reasonably estimatable."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc, an integrated biopharmaceutical
company, focuses on the development and commercialization of
pharmaceutical products in the United States, Argentina, and
Hungary. Osmotica Pharmaceuticals plc is headquartered in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.
PARAGON COIN: Faces Securities Class Action Over ICO
----------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that Paragon Coin,
and its affiliated initial coin offering, is pretty emblematic of
the ICO heyday when any token could raise money based largely on a
white-paper and effective marketing campaign. While it is hard to
accurately discern, Paragon issued the PRG token raising around $12
million dollars, according to some reports, to create a Cannabis
payment platform and real estate investment firm. Today, that same
PRG token actually trades (it seems) at around $0.0028. Really,
less than zero. At one point, PRG spiked to a market cap of over
$350 million in a clear pump ploy.
Paragon benefited by the effective marketing of co-founder and CEO
Jessica Versteeg, a former model and once Miss Iowa. Her husband,
Egor Lavrov, was part of the project but Versteeg was the highly
visible face of the firm.
As with most all post-DAO SEC statement ICOs, Paragon was the
target of a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) enforcement
action due to its claim that PRG was an unregistered security.
In brief, Paragon was required to return all funds raised to
impacted investors while paying a fine for its transgressions.
Lavrov described the settlement as "making history" as he attempted
to put a positive spin on the outcome. It appears that Paragon Coin
started the refund process but what is not clear is whether any
money was returned from the ICO.
As may have been predicted, Paragon Coin eventually filed for
bankruptcy leaving little left of the startup.
A statement by Paragon Coin on its now empty website declared:
"Our goal was to build a much-needed decentralized solution for the
cannabis industry, however, our plans were impossible to achieve
due to several legal mistakes. We never considered ourselves
experts in the matter of US securities, therefore we sought out the
guidance of highly recommended lawyers that were supposed to help,
unfortunately they misguided and failed us. We did our best to
launch the product, but most of our resources were allocated to
legal battles and compliance requirements. After a strong
consideration and evaluation of the current situation, we are sorry
to announce that we are filing for bankruptcy."
On Aug. 19, a class action lawsuit is moving forward naming Paragon
Coin, Versteeg, Lavrov, rapper Jayceon Terrell Taylor, also known
as "The Game," and others in the legal filing. The lawsuit alleges
that "Defendants violated U.S. securities laws by unlawfully
offering the sale of unregistered PRG securities, by
misrepresenting the true nature of Paragon Coin, Inc. and PRG, and
by artificially propping up the value of PRG through manipulative
trading efforts."
The law firm of Levi & Korsinsky is leading the legal action that
is taking place in the US District Court, Northern District of
California. Versteeg has been rather quiet these days with some
claiming she is now living outside the US. In fact, one SEC letter
to Versteeg was sent to an address in Gibraltar. Who knows. What we
also do not know if investors will receive any of their money back.
[GN]
PEEK A BOO USA: Angeles Sues in S.D. New York Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peek A Boo USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Peek A Boo USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-07084 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Peek A Boo USA Inc. (trade name Beaba USA) is in the plastics
kitchenware, tableware, and houseware business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Paul Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
PETER NYGARD: Judge Okays Request to Suspend Sex Crimes Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bhavi Mandalia, writing for PledgeTimes, reports that New York
Judge of the US District Prosecutor's Office has approved the
request of the Peter Nygard in proceedings against the giant group
lawsuit against alleged sex offenses are suspended for the time
being.
The matter is reported by a Canadian broadcaster CBC and New
York-based law service provider Law360 Media Service Pete Brush.
No reason has been given for the court's decision on Aug. 21.
According to journalist Brush, who first reported on the matter on
Twitter, the decision means "at least it's clear that Peter Nygard
has come under intense attention from federal authorities".
In a civil lawsuit, a total of 57 women accused Nygard of rape and
other sexual offenses. Although the action is now suspended, it may
be resumed at a later date.
U.S. Federal police have been investigating the suspected crimes of
79-year-old Nygard since the fall of last year, in addition to the
Canadian and Bahamian authorities investigating the allegations
against him.
CBC channel according to the experts interviewed, the turnaround
may mean that U.S. authorities want to make sure the civil case
doesn't mess up an unfinished criminal investigation. In the United
States, criminal evidence must be much more robust than in civil
cases where victims seek financial compensation but where the
accused cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, for example.
"This may mean that something is happening, be it arrest or charges
… or they are still investigating," said a Florida lawyer
interviewed by the CBC. Shannon Snedaker, which specializes in
cases involving victims of sex trafficking.
Criminal charges against Nygard, such as the sex trade, has been
started previously at least two FBI investigations in 2015 and
2017. The U.S. Security Agency DHS also investigated Nygard for
several months in 2016. None of the investigations led to
prosecution.
HS failed to get a comment from Nygard's spokesmanNygard has not
responded to many of HS's requests for interviews. HS also failed
to obtain comment from the class action attorneys.
Last in February, ten women filed a class action against Nygard,
accusing him of rape. Shortly after filing the class action
lawsuit, the FBI rode Nygard's company facilities in New York and
California, but authorities have not communicated what they may
have found out.
Since then, the class action has been extended twice and there are
currently a total of 57 women prosecuting Nygard. The oldest cases
are said to have taken place in 1977, and the alleged cases have
occurred every decade since. The victims are said to be 14 years
old at the youngest and come from several different countries.
The tangle became new and surprising turn, when two of Nygard 's
biological sons accused their father of child sexual abuse in a
civil lawsuit filed in New York.
According to the boys, Nygard ordered the same sex worker to have
sex with them in 2004 and 2018, according to another because "he
will be made a man" when he was 14 years old. One of the boys was
15 years old at the time of the alleged exploitation. The alleged
cases occurred in Canada and the Bahamas, where the age of
protection for children from sexual intercourse is 16 years.
Nygard, through his spokesman, denied these allegations to HS.
According to the spokesperson, the accusations are part of the same
"calculated conspiracy" as the accusations of the women in the
class action. According to Nygard, his enemy, the American
billionaire Louis Bacon, has paid people to destroy Nygard 's
reputation and businesses.
Another of Peter Nygard's sons said he feared his father's revenge
if he spoke of alleged sexual abuse, a lawsuit says.
Previously the businesses of Nygard, which has amassed hundreds of
millions of euros in assets, have been destroyed since the
allegations were made. Her fashion company Nygard International
Partnership has filed for bankruptcy in the United States, and in
Canada, nine of her companies have been declared liquidated.
In March, a Canadian judge ordered Nygard to repay debts worth
about EUR23 million to two financial companies. As Nygard did not
cooperate, his cluster of companies was placed in the hands of
liquidators.
The headquarters of Nygard Fashion Company in Toronto and the
company's other property have been ordered for sale. According to
CBC, the stores of Nygard's fashion company, which focuses on
women's clothing, are being liquidated in the United States and
Canada.
According to a database of trade registers in various countries,
Nygard's parent company had about 2,600 employees at one point. Its
turnover in 2018 was approximately EUR 60 million.
Nygard has never been convicted of sexual offenses. Based on HS,
other media and information mentioned in the class actions, Nygard
has over the years bought numerous women for silence after being
accused of rape or sexual harassment.
He has also fought a lawsuit against several parties to silence
people. [GN]
PROPHASE LABS: TCPA Class Suit Against TK Supplements Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
ProPhase Labs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that TK Supplements, Inc. one of the company's
wholly-owned subsidiaries, continues to defend a class action suit
alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
On November 12, 2019, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against TK
Supplements, Inc., one of the company's wholly-owned subsidiaries
("TK Sub"), asserting two class action claims and alleging that, by
sending plaintiff text messages to his cellular telephone number
without his prior express consent and notwithstanding its listing
on the Do No Call Registry, TK Sub violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C.
Section 227(c)(5).
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of (i) all residents within
the United States to whom TK Sub or its agents sent text messages
to the person's cellular telephone number in the past four years
and (ii) all residents within the United States to whom TK Sub or
its agents placed two or more telemarketing phone calls to the
person’s residential telephone number that was listed on the Do
Not Call Registry in the past four years.
On January 8, 2020, TK Sub filed its Answer and Defenses to the
Complaint.
ProPhase said, "We intend to defend this matter vigorously."
ProPhase Labs, Inc. a manufacturing and marketing company with deep
experience with OTC consumer healthcare products and dietary
supplements. The company is engaged in the research, development,
manufacture, distribution, marketing and sale of OTC consumer
healthcare products and dietary supplements in the United States.
The company is based in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.
PROSHARES ULTRA: Vincent Wong Reminds of Sept. 28 Motion Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug.23 announced that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020
Allegations against UCO include that: (1) decreased demand for oil
due to the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had
caused extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of
investor capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars, in a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies,
heightened illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI")
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself); (3) there was a sharp
divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets,
leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in
Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the
excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract. As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the
passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark.
Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020
According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.
Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020
Allegations against STAA include that: the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
PROTECTIVE LIFE: Still Defends Advance Trust Class Suit in Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------------
Protective Life Insurance 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 company continues to defend
itself against a putative class action suit entitled, Advance Trust
& Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities Intermediary of Life
Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290.
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA, as Securities
Intermediary of Life Partners Position Holder Trust v. Protective
Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:18-CV-01290, is a putative class
action that was filed on August 13, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company required policyholders to pay
unlawful and excessive cost of insurance charges.
Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of universal life and
variable universal life policies issued or administered by the
Company or its predecessors that provide that cost of insurance
rates are to be determined based on expectations of future
mortality experience.
The plaintiff seeks class certification, compensatory damages,
pre-judgment and post judgment interest, costs, and other
unspecified relief.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter and cannot predict
the outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that might result from this litigation.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Protective Life Insurance Company, a stock life insurance company,
provides financial services through the production, distribution,
and administration of insurance and investment products primarily
in the United States. The company operates through Life Marketing,
Acquisitions, Annuities, Stable Value Products, and Asset
Protection segments. The company was founded in 1907 and is based
in Birmingham, Alabama. Protective Life Insurance Company is a
subsidiary of Protective Life Corporation.
QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Pappas TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE PAPPAS, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. QUICKEN LOANS, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, Case No. 2:20-cv-12330-GAD-APP (E.D.
Mich., Aug. 27, 2020), challenges the Defendant's alleged practice
of sending unsolicited automated text messages in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff received a text message
to his cellular telephone number on July 9, 2020, from the
Defendant utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS).
The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his prior express
written consent to the Defendant to send or transmit the Text that
contains advertisement of its products and/or services.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff
incurred expenses to his wireless service, wasted data storage
capacity, suffered nuisance, and aggravation.
Quickens Loans, LLC, provides mortgage lending services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Tel: 847-368-1500
Fax: 847-368-1501
Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
QUTOUTIAO INC: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 23 announced that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of
Qutoutiao Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods listed
below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged
shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the
court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that
you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with
our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below.
Qutoutiao Inc. (NASDAQ:QTT)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT QTT:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/qutoutiao-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=8757&from=1
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons and entities that: a)
purchased or otherwise acquired Qutoutiao American Depositary
Shares pursuant and/ortraceable to the registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's September 2018
initial public offering; and/or b) purchased or otherwise acquired
Qutoutiao securities between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Qutoutiao replaced its advertising agent with a related party,
thereby bypassing third-party oversight of the content and quality
of the advertisements; (2) the Company placed advertisements on its
mobile app for products whose claims could not be substantiated and
thus were considered false advertisements under applicable
regulations; (3) as a result, the Company would face increasing
regulatory scrutiny and reputational harm; (4) as a result, the
Company's advertising revenue was reasonably likely to decline; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
QUTOUTIAO INC: Schall Law Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 23 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Qutoutiao Inc. ("Qutoutiao" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:QTT) for
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant to and/or
traceable to the Company's September 2018 initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or (2) between September 14, 2018 and July 15, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period") are encouraged to contact the firm
before October 19, 2020.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Qutoutiao installed a related party as
its advertising agent, removing third-party oversight of the
quality and content of advertisements. The Company's mobile app ran
ads considered false advertisements under applicable regulations.
As a result of the regulatory scrutiny the Company was likely to
face regarding such ads, revenues would decline. 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 Qutoutiao, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
CONTACT:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.,
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
Cell: 424-303-1964
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
RA MEDICAL: Bid to Dismiss Derr Suit Pending.
---------------------------------------------
RA Medical 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 to dismiss the putative
securities class action suit entitled, Derr v. Ra Medical Systems,
Inc., et al., is pending.
On June 7, 2019, a putative securities class action complaint
captioned Derr v. Ra Medical Systems, Inc., et. al., (Civil Action
no. 19CV1079 LAB NLS) was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company,
certain current and former officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO).
Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and the filing of a
subsequent amended complaint, the lawsuit alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements or omissions in the
Company's registration statement in violation of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 and between September 27, 2018 and
November 27, 2019, inclusive, in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Management intends to
vigorously defend the Company against this lawsuit.
On March 11, 2020, lead plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
underwriter defendants without prejudice.
On March 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On July 14, 2020, the court informed the parties that the motion to
dismiss is suitable for decision without oral argument.
RA Medical said, "At this time, the Company cannot predict how a
court or jury will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the
scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome.
Should the Company ultimately be found liable, the liability could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition
and its results of operations for the period or periods in which it
is incurred. The Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome
and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount or range
of loss, if any, that could result from any unfavorable outcome."
RA Medical Systems, Inc. designs, develops, and produces medical
devices. The Company offers excimer lasers for the treatment of
dermatologic and cardiovascular diseases. RA Medical Systems serves
patients in the United States. The company is based in Carlsbad,
California.
REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regulus 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 plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement in a consolidated class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has
been granted.
On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by
Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, or District Court, against the company,
Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and
Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and
currently the company's President and Chief Executive Officer).
The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain
purchasers of the company's securities, under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016,
and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding
the company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its securities.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was
filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr.
Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's former Chief
Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims
similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been
related.
On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating
that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the
District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead
counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District
Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and
the timing of defendants' answer or response.
On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions,
appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in
the actions.
On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing
lead counsel for lead plaintiffs. On December 22, 2017, lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, Dr.
Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael Huang (our former Vice President of
Clinical Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that
between February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding RG-101.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On February 6, 2018,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On
March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their opposition to the motion and
on April 24, 2018, defendants filed their response. On September 5,
2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October
1, 2019.
Subsequent to the filing of the amended complaint, counsel for the
parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the case. On November 4,
2019, the parties agreed in principle to settle the case for $0.9
million, with approximately $0.2 million to be paid by us and the
balance to be paid by our D&O insurance carrier.
On December 11, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement, which was amended on February 6, 2020. On
February 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement. On May 27, 2020, the court entered an
order preliminarily approving the settlement.
The settlement is contingent upon the court's final approval which
is scheduled for October 21, 2020. In connection with the proposed
settlement and in accordance with authoritative guidance, the
company recorded the $0.9 million loss contingency as a current
liability on its balance sheet at June 30, 2020, and recorded the
$0.7 million of expected insurance proceeds from its D&O insurance
carrier as a current receivable on our balance sheet at June 30,
2020.
Regulus said, "The $0.2 million settlement amount payable by the
Company was recorded to the statement of operations and
comprehensive loss for the year ended December 31, 2019."
Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical
industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis
C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology,
immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics
offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was
founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California.
REVOLVE GROUP: Settlement in Wage-and-Hour Suit Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------
Revolve 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 resolution of the purported class action suit
related to employee wage-and-hour claims has not moved forward due
to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County,
which was filed in May 2019, arising from employee wage-and-hour
claims under California law for alleged meal period, rest period,
payment of wages at separation, wage statement violations, and
unfair business practices.
On January 6, 2020, the company and the individual defendant in the
case entered into a binding memorandum of understanding to settle
the case which will need to be submitted for court approval prior
to becoming final.
Due to court closures and logistical complications related to the
COVID-19 pandemic, resolution of this matter has not moved forward.
Revolve said, "In December 2019, we accrued approximately $1.0
million to general and administrative expenses which as of June 30,
2020, still remained accrued within accrued expenses on the
accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet."
Revolve Group, Inc. is an e-commerce platform that caters to
millennial and generation Z consumers. The company curates luxury
apparel, footwear, and accessory items, which it sells through a
digital platform. It also owns several private brands. The company
is based in Cerritos, California.
REWALK ROBOTICS: Appeal to Revive Securities Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ReWalk Robotics Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that an appeal from a decision in the Massachusetts
securities class action remains pending in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.
Between September 2016 and January 2017, eight putative class
actions on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or
acquired the Company ordinary shares pursuant and/or traceable to
its registration statement on Form F-1 (File No. 333-197344) used
in connection with the initial public offering, or the Company's
IPO, were commenced in the following courts: (i) the Superior Court
of the State of California, County of San Mateo; (ii) the Superior
Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County; (iii)
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California; and (iv) the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
As of March 31, 2020, all complaints have been dismissed, with one
dismissal appealed.
The actions involved or involve claims under various sections of
the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act, against the
Company, certain of its current and former directors and officers,
the underwriters of the Company's IPO and certain other
defendants.
The four actions commenced in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo were dismissed in January 2017 for
lack of personal jurisdiction, and the action commenced in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California was voluntarily dismissed in March 2017.
Additionally, the two actions commenced in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, or the Superior
Court, were consolidated in December 2017, and voluntarily
dismissed with prejudice in November 2018, after the District Court
for the District of Massachusetts partially dismissed the related
claims in that court and the parties in the Superior Court entered
a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.
The action commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, was partially dismissed on
August 23, 2018.
In particular, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss the
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, finding that
the plaintiff failed to plead a false or misleading statement in
the IPO registration statement.
The District Court did not address the claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act because, as a result of the dismissal
of the claims under the Securities Act, the lead plaintiff lacked
standing to pursue those claims. Because the action in the District
Court was styled as a class action, the District Court permitted
the plaintiff to file a supplemental memorandum concerning standing
or a motion to appoint a substitute or supplemental plaintiff.
On September 10, 2018, the plaintiff sought leave to amend his
complaint to add a new plaintiff that purportedly has standing to
pursue Exchange Act claims, and the Company opposed the motion to
amend on September 24, 2018. On May 16, 2019, the court denied the
plaintiff's motion to amend and the complaint was dismissed.
Thereafter, the plaintiff timely appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The appeal has been fully
briefed and the court held oral arguments on March 2, 2020.
Based on information currently available and the current stage of
the litigation, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a
possible loss or range of possible losses, if any, with regard to
the remaining lawsuit in the District Court; therefore, no
litigation reserve has been recorded in the Company's condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2020.
The Company will continue to evaluate information as it becomes
known and will record an estimate for losses at the time or times
if and when it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the
amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
ReWalk Robotics Ltd., a medical device company, designs, develops,
and commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals
with mobility impairments or other medical conditions. The company
was formerly known as Argo Medical Technologies Ltd. ReWalk
Robotics Ltd. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Yokne'am
Illit, Israel.
RIPPLE LABS: Simmons Case Consolidated with Sostack Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Simmons, writing for Crypto News Flash, reports that there has
been some movement in one of the lawsuits against Ripple Labs. As
reported by CNF, Ripple has been facing several lawsuits for some
time now. The tenor of all pending lawsuits is that Ripple was
obliged to register the sale of the XRP token in accordance with
the US Securities Act. In addition, the plaintiffs accuse Ripple
and CEO Brad Garlinghouse of fraud and deception.
The longest pending class action lawsuit dates back to November
2018 and is being heard in the State of California, led by lead
plaintiff Bradley Sostack. In March of this year, the Simmons vs.
Ripple Labs Inc. trial began in New York State. However, the trial
was transferred to California shortly afterwards.
On August 6, a joint motion was also filed to consolidate the
Simmons case with the class action lawsuit led by Sostack. This
motion was granted on August 21. Furthermore, the judge
responsible has now taken note of Ripple's motion to dismiss the
fraud allegations.
As CNF further reported, on June 8th, Ripple Labs filed a motion to
dismiss three of the seven charges, which do not concern the
securities issue, but allege Ripple of committing fraud. Ripple's
attorneys stated in the motion to dismiss these charges that lead
plaintiff Bradley Sostack cannot prove how Ripple employees and CEO
Brad Garlinghouse made fraudulent statements.
According to a document provided to XRPArcade, a decision could
soon be made on those very allegations. The judge has taken the
fraud allegations under submission, which could mean a timely
decision. Specifically, XRPArcade wrote:
While initially August 26 was the next court date in relation to
Ripple's motion, the court has already taken the matter under
submission, meaning the Judge will think about the case and reach a
decision. If, however, the court decides an oral argument is
necessary, both parties will be notified.
While we can not be certain that the Judge will reach a decision,
it seems that a decision on Ripple's motion to dismiss any fraud
allegations against it and its executives will soon be made.
Regardless of how the judge of the US State of California might
decide soon, the core question whether XRP is a security and
whether Ripple would have had to apply for permission to sell the
XRP token, will probably not be resolved any time soon. [GN]
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Bid to File 2nd Amended Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that plaintiff is seeking leave to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust in the lawsuit
initiated by Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust.
On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated unitholders of the Trust,
filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Oklahoma against the Trust, SandRidge
and certain current and former executive officers of SandRidge,
among other defendants (the "Securities Litigation").
The complaint, which was amended on November 11, 2016 (adding Ivan
Nibur, Lawrence Ross, Jase Luna, and Mathew Willenbuncher as lead
plaintiffs) and supplemented on May 1, 2017, asserts a variety of
federal securities claims on behalf of a putative class of (a)
purchasers of common units of the Trust in or traceable to its
initial public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and (b)
purchasers of common units of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II
("SDR") in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about
April 17, 2012.
The claims are based on allegations that SandRidge and certain of
its current and former officers and directors, among other
defendants, including the Trust, are responsible for making false
and misleading statements, and omitting material information,
concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves.
The plaintiffs seek class certification, an order rescinding the
Trust's initial public offering and an unspecified amount of
damages, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
As a result of its reorganization in bankruptcy in 2016, SandRidge
is a nominal defendant only.
On August 30, 2017, the Court entered an order dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. As a result of the Court's order, the only
claims remaining in the litigation are the plaintiffs' claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (the "Exchange Act Claims").
In addition, because of the Court's order, the only remaining
defendants in the litigation are the Trust, James D. Bennett,
Matthew K. Grubb, Tom L. Ward, and SandRidge as a nominal defendant
only.
On September 11, 2017, the Court entered a subsequent order
granting in part and denying in part the remaining defendants'
motions to dismiss the Exchange Act Claims and finding that the
plaintiffs may pursue certain of the Exchange Act Claims against
the respective remaining defendants.
In November 2017, the plaintiffs' counsel informed counsel to the
Trust that, notwithstanding the dismissal of all claims against
SDR, the remaining claims in the litigation against the Trust are
being asserted not only by purchasers of common units of the Trust,
but also by purchasers of common units of SDR.
On January 19, 2018, the Trust filed a Motion for Partial Judgment
on the Pleadings as to any claims against it brought by purchasers
of common units of SDR, arguing that non-purchasers of common units
in the Trust lack statutory standing to pursue claims against the
Trust. On January 18, 2019, the Court granted the Trust's motion
dismissing claims brought by purchasers of SDR.
On July 2, 2018, defendants filed a motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that all claims asserted on behalf of the
members of the putative class are barred by the statute of
limitations. On March 26, 2019, the Court denied the motion without
prejudice should discovery reveal a basis for again challenging the
timeliness of plaintiffs' claims.
Discovery closed on June 19, 2019. Following a hearing on class
certification on September 6, 2019, the motion for class
certification remains pending.
On April 2, 2020, the Trust filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the Trust, arguing that
there is no evidence of requisite intent by the Trust, and further,
that the alleged acts and omissions of other defendants are not
properly attributable to the Trust. That motion remains pending.
On August 5, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint against the Trust. That motion remains
pending.
SandRidge Mississippian Trust I is a statutory trust formed under
the Delaware Statutory Trust Act pursuant to a trust agreement, as
amended and restated, by and among SandRidge Energy, Inc., as
Trustor, The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as
Trustee, and The Corporation Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee.
SELLAS LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Abstral(R) Promos Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
SELLAS Life Sciences 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 the motion to dismiss the second
amended consolidated class action complaint in the suit related to
Abstral(R) is pending.
On February 13, 2017, certain putative shareholder securities class
action complaints were filed in federal court alleging, among other
things, that Galena Biopharma, Inc. (Galena) and certain of
Galena's former officers and directors failed to disclose that
Galena's promotional practices for Abstral(R) (fentanyl sublingual
tablets) were allegedly improper and that Galena may be subject to
civil and criminal liability, and that these alleged failures
rendered Galena's statements about its business misleading.
The actions were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were named by the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and a
consolidated complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
On August 21, 2018, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint was granted without prejudice to file an
amended complaint.
On September 20, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
On October 22, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On November 13, 2019, the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to
dismiss.
On December 20, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint. On January 29, 2020, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
SELLAS Life Sciences Group, Inc., a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development of novel
cancer immunotherapies for various cancer indications. SELLAS is
headquartered in New York.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Appeal on Securities Case Dismissal Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that plaintiffs' appeal from a court order
dismissing a federal securities class action suit remains pending.
A federal securities class action alleging violation of the federal
securities laws was filed against Sempra Energy and certain of its
officers in July 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
In March 2018, the court dismissed the action with prejudice.
The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SEMPRA ENERGY: June Trial in Aliso Canyon Leak Suit Postponed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that the initial trial previously scheduled for June
2020 for a small number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs
has been postponed, with a new trial date to be determined by the
court.
On October 23, 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection-and-withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is
one of more than 100 injection-and-withdrawal wells at the storage
facility. SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's
leading experts to stop the Leak, and on February 18, 2016, the
California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) confirmed that the well was
permanently sealed. SoCalGas calculated that approximately 4.62 Bcf
of natural gas was released from the Aliso Canyon natural gas
storage facility as a result of the Leak.
As of August 3, 2020, 394 lawsuits, including approximately 36,000
plaintiffs, are pending against SoCalGas related to the Leak, some
of which have also named Sempra Energy. All these cases, other than
a matter brought by the Los Angeles County District Attorney and
the federal securities class action, are coordinated before a
single court in the LA Superior Court for pretrial management.
In November 2017, in the coordinated proceeding, individuals and
business entities filed a Third Amended Consolidated Master Case
Complaint for Individual Actions, through which their separate
lawsuits will be managed for pretrial purposes.
The consolidated complaint asserts causes of action for negligence,
negligence per se, private and public nuisance (continuing and
permanent), trespass, inverse condemnation, strict liability,
negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress,
fraudulent concealment, loss of consortium, wrongful death and
violations of Proposition 65 against SoCalGas, with certain causes
of action also naming Sempra Energy.
The consolidated complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages
for personal injuries, lost wages and/or lost profits, property
damage and diminution in property value, injunctive relief, costs
of future medical monitoring, civil penalties (including penalties
associated with Proposition 65 claims alleging violation of
requirements for warning about certain chemical exposures), and
attorneys' fees.
SoCalGas is engaged in settlement discussions in connection with
these actions and, in the first quarter of 2020, recorded a related
accrual of $277 million, inclusive of estimated legal costs, in
Reserve for Aliso Canyon Costs on SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
The initial trial previously scheduled for June 2020 for a small
number of randomly selected individual plaintiffs was postponed,
with a new trial date to be determined by the court.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Sempra Energy, together with its subsidiaries, invests in,
develops, and operates energy infrastructure, as well as provides
electric and gas services in the United States and internationally.
The company was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in San Diego,
California.
SONIM TECH: Settlement Reached in IPO Suit in N.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Sonim Technologies, 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 has entered into an agreement
with the Lead Plaintiff in the putative class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On September 20, 2019, a purported Sonim stockholder who allegedly
purchased stock registered in Sonim's initial public offering
("IPO") filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, captioned
Pearson v. Sonim Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 19CIV05564,
on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of Sonim
registered in the IPO (the "Pearson Action").
On October 4 and 16, 2019, two additional purported class action
complaints substantially similar to the Pearson Action were filed
on behalf of different plaintiffs yet the same putative class of
Sonim stockholders, in the same court as the Pearson Action.
On October 7, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
All four complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
by Sonim and certain of its current and former officers and
directors for, among other things, alleged false or misleading
statements and omissions in the registration statement issued in
connection with the IPO, relating primarily to an alleged failure
to disclose software defects in Sonim's phones and alleged
misstatements about performance characteristics of Sonim's phones.
In July 2020, the Company entered into an agreement with the Lead
Plaintiff in the federal court action to settle that case on a
class wide basis for the amount of $2.0 million.
This settlement is subject to definitive documentation and court
approval, as well as stockholders' opportunity to object and
opt-out as provided by the federal court.
As a result, the Company has recorded a $2.0 million accrual as of
June 30, 2020.
Sonim Technologies, Inc. provides ruggedized mobile phones and
accessories for task workers. It offers ruggedized mobile phones,
such as Sonim XP8, Sonim XP5s, and Sonim XP3 based on the Android
platform that are capable of attaching to public and private
wireless networks; industrial-grade accessories, including remote
speaker microphones, multi-bay charging accessories, and in-vehicle
hands-free voice communications solutions; and cloud-based software
and application services. Sonim Technologies, Inc. sells its mobile
phones and accessories primarily to wireless carriers in the United
States and Canada. The company was formerly known as NaviSpin.com,
Inc. and changed its name to Sonim Technologies, Inc. in December
2001. Sonim Technologies, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
headquartered in San Mateo, California.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Court Denies Bid to Change Venue in Rindahl Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roberto A. Lange of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Dakota (i) denied as moot Plaintiff's motion to add
Defendants, and (ii) denied Plaintiff's motion to change venue in a
lawsuit commenced against the South Dakota Department of
Corrections and Global Tel Link Corp. over alleged
misrepresentations in billing rates.
The case is RANDY LEE RINDAHL, Plaintiff, v. KRISTI NOEM, GOVERNOR
FOR THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN HER OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MIKE LEIDHOLT, SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; DARIN YOUNG, WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; TROY PONTO, ASSOC. WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOHN BENITON, ASSOC. WARDEN IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; CLIFF FANTROY, DIRECTOR OF SECURITY IN HIS
OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; CHAD ROBERT, MAJOR IN HIS
OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; KEITH DITMANSON, SECTION MANAGER
IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; C. WYNIA, LT. SPECIAL
INVESTIGATION UNIT IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY;
WELDING, SSGT INDENTIFICATION OFFICE IN HIS OFFICIAL AND UNOFFICIAL
CAPACITY; AND MILLER, WEST HALL COORDINATOR IN HIS OFFICIAL AND
UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY; GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION (GTL); JEFF
HAIDINGER, EMPLOYEE OF GTL; STEVE MANTANORIS, EMPLOYEE OF GTL; M.
KING, REGIONAL MANAGER OF GTL; L. OLSEN, GROUDN PERSONNEL FOR GTL;
Defendants, Case No. 4:20-CV-04044-RAL (S. S.D.).
Rindahl brings the lawsuit "on behalf of himself- and similar like
persons", alleging violations that have occurred from 2015 to 2019.
Rindahl claims that the South Dakota Department of Corrections
("SDDOC") has entered into a contract with Global Tel Link Corp.
("GTL") that provides email, e-books, phone services, and streaming
services. Rindahl believes that the contract is fraudulent and a
misrepresentation because it allegedly violates federal
regulations. He claims he is unlawfully billed, which he believes
proves that there is an illegal and unconstitutional partnership
between the Defendants.
Rindahl has asked for the Defendants to examine the billing records
and believes that SDDOC and GTL have "failed to disclose" the
billing rate and "contractual rate changes." He has contacted GTL
about the billing on some of his phone calls and they allegedly
responded with a false statement that there was no charge. Rindahl
claims SDDOC has not responded to his questions about the billing
rate or charges and that the Defendants have failed to investigate
his claims of fraud and misrepresentation.
Rindahl also believes that there has been illegal altering of GTL
Software through actions of 1 or more DOC workstations, creating
obstruction- and illegal calling practices, and the SDDOC has
failed to investigate. He claims he has requested that the SDDOC
investigate the alleged "fraudulent billing practices" and that he
has uncovered a three-year period of illegal billing practices. He
believes that the SDDOC has refused to remedy the billing issue and
claims that GTL and SDDOC are violating the Sherman Act through
their "illegal partnership" and "billing fraud."
Rindahl alleges that the contract between GTL and SDDOC has an
intent to obstruct his access to legal advice. Rindahl claims that
he has unsuccessfully tried to put federal and state courthouses
phone numbers on his phone list. Between 2017 until present,
Rindahl has tried to contact: (1) Paul Ryan's Offices; (2)
Wisconsin Department of Justice; (3) the Governor of Wisconsin; (4)
"Wisconsin 1st District;" (5) D.C. Federal Courthouse; (6) Keith
Loken (attorney); (7) Renee Christensen (attorney); (8) Eastern
District of Virginia; (9) Chris McKinney (Wisconsin Office of Gov.
Affairs); and (10) Angela Kennecke (Keloland News). All of these
requests to have the individuals, offices, and courts to be put on
his calling list were either allegedly not responded to or blocked.
Rindahl believes that the defendants are obstructing him from
contacting certain entities and people and that this "obstruction"
has amounted to a violation of his right to access the courts.
Rindahl has requested information about his account from GTL and
claims that they responded that it was no longer available and on
another occasion that his attorney has to subpoena for them now
they can't just print them. Rindahl has requested his billing
statement and a print-out of phone numbers multiple times and
allegedly receives the same answer that the records can only be
given by attorney subpoena. Rindahl claims that GTL does not
disclose its service rates accurately to its consumers (inmates).
He believes there have been calling rate increases that have not
been acknowledged by SDDOC and GTL and claims it is fraud.
Rindahl believes that SDDOC has had access to the GTL operating
system and that it is causing "obstruction of phone lines." He
also challenges the fees attached to the email services and the
Defendants' limitation on the number of characters, and the
needless delays of 24 hrs to 48 hrs upon receipt of email transfer
to an inmate's tablet. He identifies over 40 statutes/regulations
he believes the Defendants are violating. He seeks remedy through
injunctive relief and monetary damages.
Rindahl filed a pro se class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section
1983. He is a barred filer under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, but he paid the entire filing fee on March 18, 2020. Rindahl
moves to add Defendants, and moves for a change of venue.
Rindahl moves to add GTL, Jeff Haidinger, Steve Mantanoris, M.
King, and L. Olsen as Defendants. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(1) allows a party to amend his complaint once as a matter of
course. At this time, Rindahl does not need the Court's leave to
amend his complaint. Defendants GTL, Haidinger, Mantanoris, King,
and Olsen are added as Defendants and will be considered during the
Court's screening under 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A. Rindahl's motion,
Doc. 3, is denied as moot.
Rindahl asks that his case be moved to the District of Minnesota
because he believes there is an inability to obtain a bias free
forum within the District of South Dakota -- relevant to the
political and budget cross-over. Under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a)
and (b), the Court has the discretion to transfer a civil action
when appropriate to do so. Section 1404(a) allows a district court
to transfer any civil action to any other district or division
where it might have been brought or to any district or division to
which all parties have consented. Section 1404(b) allows the court
to transfer a civil action from a division in which the case is
pending to another division within the same district.
Neither Section 1404(a) nor Section 1404(b) supports granting
Rindahl's motion for a change of venue. Rindahl's arguments about
being unable to "obtain a bias free forum" because of "political
and budget cross-over are misguided. The Defendants Rindahl names
are employed by the state of South Dakota and a private
corporation. The District of South Dakota is a federal court which
operates completely independently from the South Dakota state
courts, state agencies and the state budget. The District of South
Dakota federal court routinely presides over cases involving state
actors. Rindahl's motion for change of venue is denied.
Rindahl may not pursue a class action lawsuit as a pro se litigant.
His claims against Defendants Noem, Leidholt, Young, Ponto,
Beniton, Fantroy, Robert, Ditmanson, Wynia, Welding, and Miller in
their official capacities for money damages are dismissed under 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Rindahl's First Amendment access to courts claim, Fifth Amendment
claim, Eighth Amendments claims, Conspiracy claims, claims under
the Sherman Act, and claims under 18 U.S.C. Sections 241-242,
1961-1964 against all the Defendants are dismissed under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1).
Rindahl's non-monetary claims under the Federal Communications Act,
Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, and state law survive
Section 1915A screening as against all the Defendants.
Rindahl's First Amendment free speech claim against the SDDOC
Defendants and Kristi Noem survives 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A
screening.
The Clerk will send blank summons forms and U.S. Marshals Service
Form (Form USM-285) to Rindahl so that he may cause the complaint
to be served upon the Defendants. Rindahl will complete and send
the Clerk of Courts a separate summons and USM-285 form for each
Defendant. Upon receipt of the completed summons and USM-285
forms, the Clerk of Court will issue the summons. If the completed
summons and USM-285 form are not submitted as directed, the
complaint may be dismissed.
The United States Marshals Service will serve the completed
summonses, together with a copy of the complaint, and the Order
upon the defendants.
Rindahl will keep the Court informed of his current address at all
times. All parties are bound by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and by the Court's Civil Local Rules while the case is
pending.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/7MhR0V from Leagle.com.
ST BASIL'S: Sued for Breaching Duty of Care Amid Covid Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Taylor, writing for The Guardian, reports that St Basil's aged
care home breached its duty of care and failed its residents,
according to a writ filed in the Victorian supreme court over the
nursing response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has cost dozens of
the centre's residents their lives.
The writ, obtained by Guardian Australia, was filed on Aug. 20 and
lists Effie Fotiadis as the first applicant in a case that could
include residents, their families, employees, or the estates of
residents at the Victorian aged care centre.
Fotadis' 79-year-old father, Dimitrios died on July 25, after
becoming infected with Covid-19 at St Basil's.
There have been 193 cases of coronavirus linked to the
Fawkner-based centre and 31 residents have died from Covid-19.
The writ, filed by Carbone Lawyers partner John Karantzis, alleges
Dimitrios Fotadis was not properly isolated or given personal
protective equipment, and was made to live in "an unhygienic
personal care condition and a unhygienic residential environment."
The writ alleges St Basil's breached its duty of care in allegedly
allowing staff or residents not to wear PPE, to rove freely within
the centre when there was a risk of spreading Covid-19, allowing
staff from other centres entry to St Basil's without having
self-isolated or provide an up-to-date vaccination against the flu,
and failed to act in Fotadis's best interests.
The writ alleges the centre was not compliant with legislation,
regulations and professional standards, and failed to provide
adequate and appropriately trained staff.
The centre is also accused of failing to heed the warnings of state
and federal governments of the dangers of Covid-19 and "improperly
concealing from and/or misrepresenting information to the
plaintiff, and all relevant government authorities concerning the
severity of risks and dangers of Covid-19 contamination and spread
at St Basil's".
St Basil's had not yet filed a response and Guardian Australia
attempted to contact St Basil's.
Earlier this month, the aged care regulator revealed it took four
days to inform the department of health of the outbreak in early
July.
The outbreak led to all the staff at St Basil's being stood down
and replaced with a surge workforce, after the federal government
intervened. [GN]
STAAR SURGICAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of Oct. 19 Motion Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Aug. 23 announced that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Proshares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSE:UCO)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/proshares-ultra-bloomberg-crude-oil-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Class Period: March 6, 2020 - April 27, 2020
Allegations against UCO include that: (1) decreased demand for oil
due to the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war had
caused extraordinary market volatility; (2) a massive influx of
investor capital into the Fund, totaling hundreds of millions of
dollars, in a matter of days had increased Fund inefficiencies,
heightened illiquidity in the West Texas Intermediate ("WTI")
futures contract markets in which the Fund invested, and caused the
Fund to approach positional and regulatory limits (adverse trends
exacerbated by the Offering itself); (3) there was a sharp
divergence between spot and future prices in the WTI oil markets,
leading to a super contango market dynamic as oil storage space in
Cushing, Oklahoma dwindled and was insufficient to account for the
excess supply expected to be delivered pursuant to the WTI May 2020
futures contract. As a result, UCO could not continue to pursue the
passive investment strategy represented in the Registration
Statement, causing its results to significantly deviate from its
purported benchmark.
Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020
According to the Genius Brands lawsuit defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding: (i) Nickelodeon's purported broadcast
expansion of Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; (ii) subscription
fees for the Kartoon Channel!; and (iii) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company.
Staar Surgical Company (NASDAQ:STAA)
If you suffered a loss, contact us at:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/staar-surgical-company-loss-submission-form?prid=8756&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
Class Period: February 26, 2020 - August 10, 2020
Allegations against STAA include that: the Company was overstating
and/or mischaracterizing: (1) its sales and growth in China; (2)
its marketing spend; (3) its research and development expenses; and
that as a result of the foregoing, (4) Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
STATE FARM: Court Approves Plan of Class Notice in Bally Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ELIZABETH A. BALLY, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04954-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (i) granted Bally's motion for approval of
her plan of notice, and (ii) denied the Defendant's motion to stay
pending its petition for interlocutory review of the class
certification order.
Bally purchased a flexible premium adjustable insurance policy,
Form 94030, from State Farm Life Insurance Company on April 8,
1994, on behalf of her daughter. The Policy provides policy owners
a savings, or interest-bearing component that is identified in the
Policies as the 'Account Value.' Under the terms of the Policies,
the Account Value consists of an interest-bearing account that
accumulates over time. The money that makes up the Account Value
is the property of the policy owner and is held in trust by State
Farm.
The Policy authorizes State Farm to take a "Monthly Deduction" from
the Account Value. The monthly deduction is made each month,
whether or not premiums are paid, as long as the cash surrender
value is enough to cover that monthly deduction. Each deduction
includes: (1) the cost of insurance ("COI"), (2) the monthly
charges for any riders, and (3) the monthly expense charge.
The dispute in the case centers on the first factor -- the COI.
The Policy goes on to describe the monthly cost of insurance rates.
Expenses and profits are not mentioned. Proper interpretation of
that section -- and particularly the phrase "based on" -- is the
key to the dispute.
Bally alleges that although the Policies authorize the Defendant to
use only certain, specified factors in determining Monthly Cost of
Insurance Rates -- namely, "insured's age on the Policy
anniversary, sex, and applicable rate class, Policy at 10" -- the
Defendant uses other factors, not authorized by the Policies, when
determining those rates. In consequence, Bally urges that State
Farm violated the Policy when it calculated the COI and took more
money out of the Account Value than it was authorized to.
Bally filed a class action complaint for breach of contract,
conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief under California
law in August 2018. Following discovery, State Farm moved for
summary judgment. It argued, inter alia, that Bally's legal theory
was deficient because the language in the Policy did not require
that the listed factors be exhaustive. The Court denied the
motion, holding that the phrase "based on" is ambiguous and
therefore must be construed against the insurer.
State Farm then asked the Court to certify for interlocutory appeal
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) the order denying summary judgment.
The Court granted State Farm's request for leave to appeal but
denied State Farm's accompanying request for a stay, finding that
staying the litigation would not promote judicial efficiency. The
Ninth Circuit denied both State Farm's petition and its subsequent
motion for reconsideration.
Bally moved to certify a class consisting of all persons who own or
owned a universal life insurance policy issued by State Farm on
Form 94030 in the State of California whose policy was in-force on
or after Jan. 1, 2002 and who was subject to at least one monthly
deduction.
In support of class certification, Bally offered an expert report
from actuary Scott J. Witt. Witt provided a model that purported
to reliably calculate the allegedly improper charges for each
Policy using State Farm's own documents and data. State Farm moved
to strike the materials comprising the Witt Report, arguing it was
inadmissible under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc.
The Court denied the motion to strike and granted class
certification. It denied the motion to strike based on Ninth
Circuit case law holding that inadmissibility alone is not a proper
basis to reject evidence submitted in support of class
certification. The Court then conducted a Daubert analysis and
assessed State Farm's arguments to determine what weight to give
the Witt Report. The Court found that the Witt Report was
reliable. The Court also found that Bally's proposed class
satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
State Farm has petitioned the Ninth Circuit for interlocutory
review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) of the class
certification order. The petition presents two questions: Whether
this Court "manifestly erred in holding that: (I) extrinsic
evidence is not proper under California law in determining
liability under the Plaintiff's theory and should not be considered
on class certification; and (II) the damages model of a purported
expert may satisfy the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement
despite a methodology that introduces arbitrary variables that do
not correspond to the Plaintiff's theory of liability, thus
preventing an accurate measurement of damages The petition remains
pending.
Bally has moved for approval of her plan of notice to the Class.
State Farm opposes Bally's plan of notice on various grounds,
including that notice should be stayed pending its Rule 23(f)
petition. It has also moved to stay the action in its entirety
pending the petition for interlocutory review.
As for State Farm's the Motion to Stay, Judge Breyer finds that
State Farm has demonstrated, at most, that its Rule 23(f) petition
presents serious questions going to the merits. But it fails to
demonstrate that staying the litigation in its entirety is
necessary to prevent irreparable injury. To the extent State Farm
has shown that the balance of hardships "tips sharply" in its
favor, that injury can be addressed by a targeted stay of
dissemination of class notice.
Turning to Bally's Motion to Approve and Disseminate Class Notice,
the parties dispute just a few other aspects of Bally's proposed
plan of notice. Because there are not other obvious deficiencies
in the proposed plan, the Judge focuses on those disagreements.
Given that and the fact that the proposed notice satisfies the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2)(B), the
Judge approves the form of notice. The notice will be sent in the
same manner as for every other class member: first-class mail,
addressed to the policyholder at the address provided by State
Farm. If notice is returned as undeliverable, Epiq Systems, Inc.
will make reasonable efforts (including a "skip trace" search) to
find a current address. The Judge approves this approach for
providing notice to the legal representatives of deceased
policyholders.
Finally, the experience in Vogt v. State Farm Life Insurance Co.
demonstrates that Bally's plan of notice gives State Farm
sufficient time to compile and deliver a notice list. It also
suggests that 30 days (the notice period in that case) was
sufficient for class members to opt out, though perhaps not to
thoroughly process those opt outs. That being said, 45 days is
enough additional time to avoid the problems State Farm claims
arose in the Missouri litigation. The proposed notice period is
approved.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Breyer held that dissemination of
class notice is stayed pending State Farm's Rule 23(f) petition.
No other aspect of the litigation is stayed. The parties are
directed to inform the Court immediately once State Farm's Rule
23(f) petition is granted or denied. State Farm's request for a
stay is otherwise denied, and Bally's proposed plan of notice is
otherwise approved.
A full-text copy of the District Court's June 5, 2020 Order is
available at https://is.gd/o7UzL8 from Leagle.com.
SURGALIGN HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Lowry Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Surgalign 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 company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Patricia Lowry.
On July 20, 2020, RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (RTI) completed the
disposition of the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) business,
and was renamed Surgalign Holdings, Inc.
A class action complaint was filed by Patricia Lowry, a purported
shareholder of the Company, against the Company, and certain
current and former officers of the Company, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 23,
2020 asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and demanding a jury trial ("Lowry Action").
The court appointed a shareholder as Lead Plaintiff and set August
16, 2020 as the deadline for the filing of any amended complaint.
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to extend the
deadline for the filing an amended complaint until August 31,
2020.
Surgalign said, "Based on the current information available to the
Company, the impact that current or any future litigation may have
on the Company cannot be reasonably estimated."
Surgalign Holdings, Inc. is a global medical technology company
advancing the science of spine care, focused on delivering
innovative solutions that drive superior clinical and economic
outcomes.
SYNACOR INC: Appeal in SDNY Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------
Synacor, 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 in the securities class action suit
logged in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York remains pending.
The Company and its Chief Executive Officer and former Chief
Financial Officer were named as defendants in a federal securities
class action lawsuit filed on April 4, 2018 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class
includes persons who purchased the Company's shares between May 4,
2016 and March 15, 2018.
The plaintiff alleged that the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its contract with AT&T and the
timing of revenue to be derived therefrom, and that as a result,
class members suffered losses because Synacor shares traded at
artificially inflated prices. The plaintiff sought an unspecified
amount of damages, as well as interest, attorneys' fees and legal
expenses.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2018, a
second amended complaint on November 2, 2018, and the Company filed
a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2018. The plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 19, 2019 and the
Company filed its reply to plaintiff's opposition on February 15,
2019.
On August 28, 2019, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss but permitted the plaintiff to seek leave to replead. On
October 2, 2019, the plaintiff filed a letter application seeking
the court's leave to file a third amended complaint. The Company
filed a letter in opposition to the plaintiff's motion on October
21, 2019. The court denied plaintiffs' application to file an
amended complaint and ordered the case closed on November 15, 2019.
The Clerk of the Court entered judgment in favor of the Company and
the individual defendants and closed the case on November 19, 2019.
Plaintiff filed its Notice of Appeal on December 16, 2019.
Plaintiff-Appellant filed its brief in support of its appeal on
March 20, 2020. Defendants-Appellees filed their reply brief in
opposition on June 19, 2020 and Plaintiff-Appellant filed its
subsequent reply brief in support of its appeal on July 10, 2020.
Oral arguments are pending to be scheduled in front of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend them
vigorously.
Synacor said, "The Company cannot yet determine whether it is
probable that a loss will be incurred in connection with this
complaint, nor can the Company reasonably estimate the potential
loss, if any. Legal fees and liabilities related to this lawsuit
are covered by our D&O insurance policy now that the Company has
reached its deductible."
Synacor, Inc. operates as a technology development, multiplatform
services, and revenue partner for video, Internet, and
communications providers; and device manufacturers, governments,
and enterprises in the United States and internationally. The
company was formerly known as CKMP, Inc. and changed its name to
Synacor, Inc. in July 2001. Synacor, Inc. was founded in 1998 and
is headquartered in Buffalo, New York.
SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Suit by ERS Hawaii Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
headed by the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii.
On May 1, 2017, May 2, 2017, June 8, 2017 and June 14, 2017, four
putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain
of its current and former officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the
"Securities Law Action").
After these cases were consolidated, the court appointed as lead
plaintiff Employees' Retirement System of the State of Hawaii,
which filed, on November 20, 2017, a consolidated complaint
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between February 3, 2016 and June 13, 2017.
On February 2, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Before that
motion was decided, on August 24, 2018, lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between October 28, 2014 and June 13,
2017.
On June 28, 2019, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, without
prejudice, allowing lead plaintiff leave to amend its complaint. On
August 14, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint.
The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
it alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false and
misleading statements of material information concerning the
Company's financial results, business operations, and prospects.
On October 4, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On May 29, 2020,
the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint without prejudice.
The Company believes that the asserted claims lack merit and
intends to defend against all of the claims vigorously.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs.
Synchronoss said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of the actions at this time
and can give no assurance that the asserted claims will not have a
material adverse effect on its financial position or results of
operations."
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. provides cloud, digital, messaging,
and Internet of Things (IoT) platforms, products, and solutions in
North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and
the Asia Pacific. Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. was founded in
2000 and is headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey.
TEMPLE PLAZA: FLSA Collective Status Sought
-------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA MERRIWETHER, and AMI
COLEMAN, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly
situated, v. TEMPLE PLAZA HOTEL, INC., d/b/a BOUZOUKI CLUB, FAMOUS
DOOR II, INC., and DENNIS KEFALLINOS, Case No.
2:19-cv-11854-VAR-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action of and directing notice sent to members
of a class of:
"all current and former employees of the Defendants Temple
Plaza Hotel Inc. d/b/a/ Bouzouki Club, Famous Door II,
Inc., and Dennis Kefallinos, who worked as Dancers for the
Defendants and who were not paid at least minimum wage for
all hours worked and were not paid 1-1/2 times their
regular rate for overtime hours"; and
2. directing the Defendants to provide contact information
for all potential opt-in plaintiffs within four weeks of
conditional certification.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants failed to properly pay
them and a class of similarly situated employees at least minimum
wage for all hours worked and 1.5 times their regular rate for
overtime hours while working for the Defendants.
The Defendants operate a Gentleman's Club in Detroit, Michigan
known as Bouzouki, which employs individuals as Dancers. According
to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay those they employed as
Dancers for their work at Bouzouki, and the only compensation
received by the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated were tips
given to them from Bouzouki's customers.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Maia Johnson Braun, Esq.
David A. Hardesty, Esq.
GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
Troy, MI 48084
Telephone: (248) 275-5200
E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ben M. Gonek, Esq.
BEN GONEK LAW, P.C.
14290 Northline Road
Southgate, MI 48195-1820
Telephone: (313) 963-3377
E-mail: ben@goneklaw.com
TESCO CORP: 5th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 19 upheld a trial
court's ruling that tossed a proposed shareholder class action
lawsuit against energy technology company Tesco Corp., its former
board of directors and Nabors Industries Ltd. [GN]
TESLA INC: Fails to Pay Earned & Unused PTO Wages, Davis Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY DAVIS, as a private attorney general and as an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG20071150 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Aug. 17, 2020), challenges
the Defendants' systemic illegal employment practices, including
not paying earned and unused paid time off, in violation of the
California Labor Code.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants have acted with
deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of
employees their by failing to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and by not paying earned and unused paid time off
("PTO") wages at the end of their employments. Specifically, the
Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis and earned "FLSA Prem Adj"
wages, which were paid based on an hourly rate and number of hours
worked. When such wages were paid, the wage statements do not
identify the applicable hourly rate or number of hours worked. In
addition, the Plaintiff and other employees earned PTO, which could
be used for vacations or any other reason. Upon the end of their
employments, all earned and unused PTO wages were not paid out to
the Plaintiff and other employees.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in June 2018. Until
his employment as a Production Associate ended in June 2020, the
Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis as a non-exempt employee.
Tesla, Inc., is an American electric vehicle and clean energy
company based in Palo Alto, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Larry W. Lee, Esq.
Simon L. Yang, Esq.
DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 488-6555
Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
sly@diversitylaw.com
- and -
William L. Marder, Esq.
POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
1501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
Hollister, CA 95023
Telephone: (831) 531-4214
Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com
TEVA PHARMA: Lidoderm (R) Related Suit in Mississippi Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the State of Mississippi has filed
a complaint relating to Lidoderm(R), against Teva and Watson in
Mississippi state court, which it subsequently amended
Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed
against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that
Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals
Inc. relating to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches)
violated the antitrust laws. The cases were consolidated as a
multidistrict litigation in federal court in California and were
settled in 2018.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also filed suit to challenge the
Lidoderm(R) settlement, although in February 2019, the FTC
dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for
Teva's agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree, as
described above.
In July 2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of
California.
On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit
against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court.
Defendants moved to dismiss that lawsuit on June 5, 2020, and those
motions remain pending.
On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint
against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which it
subsequently amended on June 12, 2020.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Opioids Suits in State and Federal Courts Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited 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 in various state and federal cases related to opioid sales
and distribution.
Since May 2014, more than 3,000 complaints have been filed with
respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva
affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a
number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies,
tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class
actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts.
Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio ("MDL
Opioid Proceeding") and many of the cases filed in state court have
been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid
Proceeding.
Two cases that were in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were recently
transferred back to federal district court for additional
discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial. Those cases are: City
of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 14-cv-04361 (N.D.
Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et
al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.).
Other cases remain pending in various states. In some
jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases
have been transferred to a single court within their respective
state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings.
Complaints asserting claims under similar provisions of different
state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged
in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including
ACTIQ(R) and FENTORA(R). The complaints also assert claims related
to Teva’s generic opioid products.
In addition, over 930 personal injury plaintiffs, including various
putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal
injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints.
Furthermore, approximately 700 complaints have named Anda, Inc.
(and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda
failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify
suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and
diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other
than legitimate medical purposes.
Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil
penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys' fees
and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure
of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing
the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs
specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged
damages.
In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several
damages among all defendants.
Teva said, "Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in
several states in 2020 and 2021. A court in New York had set a
date, for a liability trial only, to start in March 2020. However,
that trial has been postponed due to the impact of COVID-19. A new
trial date has not been set. It is difficult to predict when or if
trials will occur in 2020 given the current impact of COVID-19 on
the United States and the U.S. judicial system."
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TEVA PHARMA: Suit Over Drug Pricing Strategies in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that discovery ongoing in the
consolidated class action suit related to pricing strategies for
various drugs in its generic drug portfolio.
On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Teva and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. Those lawsuits were consolidated and
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (the "Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation").
On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an
amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva's
securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended
complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws
in connection with Teva's alleged failure to disclose pricing
strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by
making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering
materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal
fees, interest, and costs.
In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities
class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar
allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Between August 2017 and June 2020, nineteen complaints were filed
against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and
directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees,
costs and expenses.
The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf
of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have
indicated that they intend to "opt-out" of the plaintiffs' class if
one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation.
On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers
Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative
class actions for all purposes and the "opt-out" cases for pretrial
purposes. The case is now in discovery.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited, a pharmaceutical company,
develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic medicines
and a portfolio of specialty medicines worldwide. It operates
through two segments, Generic Medicines and Specialty Medicines.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited was founded in 1901 and is
headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel.
TIGER BRANDS: Class Action Lawyers Seek Food Safety Info
--------------------------------------------------------
Katharine Child, writing for BusinessDay, reports that Tiger Brands
is facing another legal challenge in the listeriosis class action
lawsuit as its opponents haul the consumer goods company to court
to force it to provide more information about its food safety
processes.
The company's Polokwane factory, which produces Enterprise polony,
was identified by the National Institute for Communicable Diseases
as the source of the world's largest listeriosis outbreak, which
killed 216 people in 2018. [GN]
TOYOTA: Faces Class Action Over Defective Fuel Pumps
----------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Toyota
fuel pump class action lawsuit alleges Toyota refuses to repair or
replace the fuel pumps and continues to require owners to drive
vehicles with faulty DENSO fuel pumps.
The vehicles included in the class action lawsuit are equipped with
DENSO fuel pumps and fuel pump assemblies that begin with part
numbers 23220 or 23221.
2018–2019 Toyota Avalon
2018–2019 Toyota Corolla
2018–2019 Toyota Highlander
2018–2019 Toyota Sequoia
2018–2019 Toyota Tacoma
2018–2019 Toyota Camry
2014 Toyota FJ Cruiser
2014–2015, 2018–2019 Toyota Land Cruiser
2018–2019 Toyota Sienna
2014–2015, 2018–2019 Toyota Forerunner
2018–2019 Lexus GS 300
2014–2015 Lexus GX 460
2017 Lexus IS 200t
2014–2015, 2018–2019 Lexus IS 350
2018–2019 Lexus LC 500h
2018–2019 Lexus LS 500
2014–2015 Lexus LX 570
2018–2019 Lexus RC 300
2015, 2018–2019 Lexus RC 350
2018–2019 Lexus RX 350
2018–2019 Toyota Tundra
2018–2019 Lexus ES 350
2013–2014, 2018–2019 Lexus GS 350
2014 Lexus IS-F
2018–2019 Lexus IS 300
2018–2019 Lexus LC 500
2013–2015 Lexus LS 460
2018–2019 Lexus LS 500h
2015 Lexus NX 200t
2017 Lexus RC 200t
2017–2019 Lexus RX 350
The fuel pumps have impellers that can deform due to excessive fuel
absorption, causing the impellers to hit the fuel pump casings. A
damaged fuel pump can cause illumination of the master warning and
check engine lights and engines that run rough and stall.
In addition, a failed pump will prevent the engine from starting in
the first place.
The defective fuel pumps allegedly cause a loss of vehicle values
while making consumers less safe on the roads. The plaintiff also
claims all vehicle occupants and vehicles on the roads are at risk
because the vehicles may stall when the fuel pumps fail.
According to the plaintiff, he brought his vehicle to a Toyota
dealer for a different problem and asked about the fuel pump
recall. Technicians allegedly said they were aware of the recall,
but the automaker didn't have a fix yet.
DENSO, the manufacturer of the fuel pump, allegedly knew in 2015
about the defective fuel pumps because of statements in a 2016
patent application.
According to the application, the low-pressure fuel pump impellers
"may be swelled due to the fuel and water contained in the fuel,
therefore a rotation of the impeller may be stopped when the
impeller is swelled and comes in contact with the [fuel pump]
housing."
The automaker also recalled nearly 700,000 vehicles in January
because of the fuel pumps and the recall was expanded to about 2
million Toyota and Lexus vehicles in March.
Toyota told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 63
field reports alleged the fuel pumps failed while driving less than
20 mph and three reports said the vehicles were moving above 20
mph. In addition, Toyota said the fuel pumps failed primarily in
hotter climates.
The Toyota fuel pump class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: Shoemaker,
et al., v. Toyota North America, Inc.
The plaintiff is represented by Axler Goldich LLC, and Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. [GN]
TRANSURBAN: Faces Class Action Over "Unreasonable" Admin Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyerly reports that toll road operator Transurban faces a class
action alleging it charge Queensland road users "unreasonable"
administrative fees on unpaid tolls. [GN]
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Former Students Recall Experience
---------------------------------------------------
Aarthi Swaminathan, writing for Yahoo Finance, reports that Trump
University promised to teach students the "secrets of success" in
the real estate industry before shutting down in 2010 and
eventually being ordered to pay a $25 million settlement to
students who claimed that they were duped.
For Sherri Simpson, one of the former students involved in the
class-action lawsuit and the only objector to the settlement, the
experience is a distant but vivid memory.
"I listened to what Trump said, they put him up on video, 'Oh,
you're going to get the best of the best,'" Simpson, a bankruptcy
lawyer in Florida, recalled in an interview with Yahoo Finance's
Illegal Tender. "You have the same language he's been using for the
last three and a half years [as president]: 'It's the top of . . .
the top. It's the best. It's the most beautiful, it's whatever.'"
Years later, the tale of Trump University (also known as the Trump
Entrepreneur Initiative) is instructive to problems arising from
purported educational institutions operating primarily for
financial gain.
'This is a joke. There's nothing there.'
Trump University, designed to help people and train them to become
real estate experts, launched in 2005 and began offering free
seminars as a way to attract students.
"It was an upscale hotel, I believe in Coral Gables," recalled
Simpson, who attended his program in Florida in 2010. "And they had
a big six-foot thing of Trump there, and they had materials they
gave you, and they had a lecturer."
The promise of the program was plausible, given that Trump made
millions in the industry after taking over his father's empire.
"My thought process -- which turned out to be totally wrong -- but
my thought process at the time was here's a guy, big name person,"
Simpson said. "Father was a real estate investor, has a lot of
money, I knew he had filed bankruptcy, but being in the bankruptcy
field, I also knew this was not an abnormal way of handling failed
businesses."
After being told "about Trump University and how wonderful it is,"
Simpson said, attendees were nudged to buy into training programs
that cost as much as $35,000. Simpson and a friend signed up for a
three-day seminar, called the Apprenticeship Program.
"Immediately I went online, I was very excited to get started, and
I went into the course and I started looking around and they had a
bunch of videos," she recalled. "Some of the videos were five years
old, many of the videos only related to New York."
Very quickly, she knew something was off.
"I realized: 'This is a joke,'" she said. "'There's nothing
there.'"
The videos were old, they weren't about investing in Florida, and
as she went through more of them, she was surprised at how little
use they were to her as a bankruptcy lawyer. And then her mentor
for the three days disappeared.
"It was about a year later," Simpson said. "I think I heard from
him. And he said that he never got paid by Trump."
'Thank goodness that Trump University was not using federal student
loans'
Unlike Fast Train, ITT Tech, and other defunct for-profit schools,
Trump University wasn't an accredited institution. That meant that
students couldn't be put in the position of borrowing thousands of
dollars in federal student loans for a phony education certificate
or degree, and then struggle to repay.
"Thank goodness that Trump University was not using federal student
loans, because many more students would have enrolled," Bob
Shireman, an education expert at the Century Foundation, told
Illegal Tender. "And Trump University would have filed a lawsuit to
keep getting federal student loans. I mean, it really would have
been awful."
Trump University shut down after multiple investigations,
complaints, and three lawsuits: Two class action suits and one
civil complaint by the New York Attorney General.
Trump initially defended the school, vowing to not settle. He
quickly reversed that position after becoming the president of the
United States.
While Trump University is now defunct, its rise and fall serves as
another example of how predatory for-profit schools can thrive in
America.
The legal discovery process yielded illuminating documents such as
Trump University's 2010 playbook, which mapped out a graph of
emotions that potential students or "clients" go through while
being pitched.
The playbook also provided instructors with advice on how to
convince reluctant students, including those who were concerned
about taking on credit card debt to pay for enrollment. (In 2016,
an investigation by the Associated Press found that some of the
"hand-picked" instructors had some "checkered pasts," from being
convicted of cocaine trafficking to child molestation.) [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Thornton Appeals Order and Judgment to 10th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs ROBIN G. THORNTON and MICHAEL LUCERO filed an appeal
from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
27, 2020, and Judgment dated August 27, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit styled ROBIN G. THORNTON, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS,
CORP., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY LLC,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00105-KWR-SMV, consolidated with MICHAEL LUCERO,
on behalf of himself and Others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS,
INC.; CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP.; JBS USA FOOD COMPANY; and
NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-00106-JB-KK,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico,
Albuquerque.
Plaintiffs Robin Thornton and Michael Lucero filed substantially
similar putative class actions and their cases were consolidated
for pretrial matters. Defendants produce and sell beef products to
retailers. Both Plaintiffs assert that Defendants are misleading
retailers and consumers by labeling their beef "Product of the
USA", when in fact the cattle are raised in foreign countries,
imported into the United States live, then slaughtered and
processed in the United States. Plaintiff Thornton asserts a
putative class of consumers who were deceived into paying higher
prices for American beef when it was allegedly foreign beef.
Plaintiff Lucero asserts a putative class of American Ranchers who
receive less for their American cattle because of the influx of
imported cattle sold as product of the USA.
On March 11, 2020, the cases were consolidated for all pre-trial
purposes, and the parties agreed the cases would be tried
separately before the undersigned.
Plaintiff Lucero seeks to amend his complaint to replace his Unfair
Practices Act ("UPA") Claim with a claim for violation of the New
Mexico Antitrust Act. Plaintiff Lucero appeared to acknowledge that
his New Mexico UPA claim in his first amended complaint fails
because, as a competitor of Defendants, he lacks standing.
Defendants argue that amendment here is futile. The Court agrees.
The ATA claim fails because it is also preempted.
The appellate case is captioned as Thornton, et al. v. Tyson Foods,
Inc., et al., Case No. 20-2124, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Docketing statement, transcript order form, and notice of
appearance are due on September 14, 2020, for Michael
Lucero and Robin G. Thornton; and
-- Notice of appearance is due on September 14, 2020, for
Cargill Meat Solutions, Corp., JBS USA Food Company,
National Beef Packing Company, LLC and Tyson Foods,
Inc.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ROBIN G. THORNTON and MICHAEL LUCERO, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented
by:
A. Blair Dunn, Esq.
WESTERN AGRICULTURE, RESOURCE AND BUSINESS
ADVOCATES, LLP
400 Gold Avenue SW, Suite 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 750−3060
Facsimile: (505) 226−8500
E-mail: abdunn@ablairdunn−esq.com
Defendants-Appellees TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS,
CORP., JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, and NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC
are represented by:
Brian J. Fisher, Esq.
Armand D. Huertaz, Esq.
MAYER LAW FIRM
9400 Holly Ave. NE, Bldg. 3B
Albuquerque, NM 87122
Telephone: (505) 595-1414
E-mail: bfisher@mayerllp.com
ahuertaz@mayerllp.com
- and -
Amir M. Nassihi, Eq.
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON, L.L.P.
One Montgomery Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 544-1900
Facsimile: (415) 391−0281
E-mail: anassihi@shb.com
- and -
Michael M. Sawers, Esq.
Tyler A. Young, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South, Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
Facsimile: (612) 766−1600
E-mail: michael.sawers@faegredrinker.com
tyler.young@faegredrinker.com
- and -
Alex Walker, Esq.
MODRALL SPERLING
500 4th Street NW, Suite 1000
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 848-1800
Facsimile: (505) 848−1882
E-mail: awalker@modrall.com
- and -
Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
Matthew G. Munro, Esq.
MCGRATH NORTH
1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700
Omaha, NE 68102
Telephone: (402) 341−3070
Facsimile: (402) 341−0216
E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com
mmunro@mcgrathnorth.com
- and -
Andrew G. Schultz, Esq.
RODEY DICKASON SLOAN AKIN & ROBB
201 Third Street NW, Suite 2200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 765-5900
E-mail: aschultz@rodey.com
- and -
Eric R. Burris, Esq.
Debashree Nandy, Esq.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK
201 Third Street NW, Suite 1700
Albuquerque, NM 87102-4386
Telephone: (505) 244-0770
Facsimile: (505) 244−9266
E-mail: eburris@bhfs.com
- and -
Jennifer Jackson, Esq.
Robert M. Thompson, Esq.
Cassandra Rose Wait, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER, LLP
1200 Maine Street, Suite 3800
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 338-7700
E-mail: Jennifer.Jackson@bclplaw.com
rmthompson@bclplaw.com
Cassie.Wait@bryancave.com
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces Giannini FDCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Collection
Bureau, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole M. Giannini, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-05131 (N.D. Ill., Aug.
31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
United Collection Bureau Inc. provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services to creditors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Vlahakis, Esq.
SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD.
2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Phone: (630) 575-8181
Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com
US XPRESS: Appeal in Calif. Wage & Hour Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 petition seeking permission to
file an interlocutory appeal of the court's decision on a minimum
wage claim remains pending.
On December 23, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its subsidiary U.S. Xpress, Inc. in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Bernardino. The Company removed the
case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
The plaintiff's initial proposed class certification (any employee
driver who has driven in California at any time since December 23,
2011) was denied by the district court under Rule 26 due to lack of
commonality amongst the putative class members.
The Court granted the plaintiff's revised Motion for Class
Certification, and the certified class now consists of all employee
drivers who resided in California and who have driven in the State
of California on behalf of U.S. Xpress at any time since December
23, 2011.
The case alleges that class members were not paid for off-the-clock
work, were not provided duty free meal or rest breaks, and were not
paid premium pay in their absence, were not paid the California
minimum wage for all hours worked in that state, were not provided
accurate and complete itemized wage statements and were not paid
all accrued wages at the end of their employment, all in violation
of California law.
The class seeks a judgment for compensatory damages and penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment
interest.
On May 2, 2019, the district court dismissed on grounds of
preemption the claims alleging failure to provide duty free meal
and rest breaks or to pay premium pay for failure to provide such
breaks under California law. The parties also filed cross-motions
for summary judgment on the remaining claims, and the Company filed
a motion to decertify the class.
The court recently issued it ruling on the pending cross-motions:
(1) the court denied the Company’s motion to decertify the class;
(2) the court granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on
the plaintiff’s minimum wage claim for non-driving duties such as
pre-trip and post-trip inspection, fueling, receiving dispatches,
waiting to load or unload, and handling paperwork for the loads for
January 1, 2013 forward (leaving the minimum wage claim only for
the approximate one-year time period from December 23, 2011 to
December 31, 2012); (3) the court granted the plaintiff’s motion
for summary judgment for the time spent taking Department of
Transportation-required 10-hour breaks while hauling high value
loads in California for solo drivers and for the designated team
driver responsible for the load; and (4) the court denied the
balance of cross-motions.
The plaintiff has filed a petition for permission to file an
interlocutory appeal of the court's decision on the minimum wage
claim, which the court has granted and is presently before the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for final determination as to
whether the plaintiff will be given permission to file the appeal.
The parties will complete expert discovery over the next several
months, and a jury trial is set to begin on February 16, 2021.
U.S. Xpress said, "We are currently not able to predict the
probable outcome or to reasonably estimate a range of potential
losses, if any. We intend to vigorously defend the merits of these
claims."
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
US XPRESS: Continues to Defend Independent Contractor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 class action plaintiff's
petition for interlocutory appeal remains pending.
On March 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress, Inc. and U.S.
Xpress Leasing, Inc.
The putative class includes all individuals who performed work for
U.S. Xpress, Inc. or U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. as lease drivers
from March 26, 2016 to present. The complaint alleges that
independent contractors are improperly designated as such and
should be designated as employees and thus subject to the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The complaint further alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay
practices for the putative class members violated the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA for the period from March 26, 2016 to
present. The complaint further alleges that the Company violated
the requirements of the Truth in Leasing Act with regard to the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements it
entered into with the putative class members. The complaint further
alleges that the Company failed to comply with the terms of the
independent contractor agreements and lease purchase agreements
entered into with the putative class members, that it violated the
provisions of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in advertising,
describing and marketing the lease purchase program to the putative
class members, and that it was unjustly enriched as a result of the
foregoing allegations.
The company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration on October 18,
2019. On January 17, 2020, the court granted that motion, in part,
compelling arbitration on all of the plaintiff's claims and denying
the plaintiff’s motion for conditional certification of a
collective action. The court further stayed the matter pending
arbitration, rather than dismissing it entirely.
On March 6, 2020, the plaintiff petitioned the court to certify the
decision for an interlocutory appeal. The Company filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motion on March 20, 2020, and plaintiff
filed her reply on April 3, 2020, purportedly relying, in part, on
a recent case from Massachusetts. In response to that newly cited
case, the Company was granted leave to file a surreply, which it
filed on April 13, 2020.
The district court has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's petition
for interlocutory appeal.
U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
US XPRESS: Facing Independent Contractor Suit in Tenn.
------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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 has been named as a
defendant in a putative collective and class action complaint
initiated by all current and former over-the-road truck drivers
classified as independent contractors and employed by the company
.
On June 25, 2020, a putative collective and class action complaint
was filed against the Company and its subsidiaries U.S. Xpress,
Inc. and U.S. Xpress Leasing, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The putative class and collective action includes all current and
former over-the-road truck drivers classified as independent
contractors and employed by the company during the applicable
statute of limitations.
The complaint alleges that independent contractors are improperly
designated as such and should be designated as employees subject to
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).
The complaint alleges that U.S. Xpress, Inc.'s pay practices for
the putative collective and class members violated the minimum wage
provisions of the FLSA for the period from June 25, 2017 to the
present.
The complaint further alleges that we failed to pay the plaintiff
and members of the class for all miles they drove and breached the
contract between the parties and that we were unjustly enriched as
a result of the foregoing allegations. The parties have met and
conferred to discuss the plaintiff's claims, and the plaintiff has
agreed to file a joint stipulation that his claim would be
submitted to individual arbitration and asking the court to stay
the case pending arbitration.
U.S. Xpress said, "There has been no discovery in this matter, and
we are currently not able to predict the probable outcome or to
reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any. We believe
the allegations made in the complaint are without merit and intend
to defend ourselves vigorously against the complaints relating to
such actions."
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
US XPRESS: IPO Related Class Action Suits Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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
several class action suits related to its initial public offering
("IPO").
Between November 2018 and April 2019, eight substantially similar
putative securities class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain other defendants: five in the Circuit Court of
Hamilton County, Tennessee ("Tennessee State Court Cases"), two in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
("Federal Court Cases"), and one in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York ("New York State Court Case").
Two of the Tennessee State Court Cases and one of the Federal Court
Cases have been voluntarily dismissed.
All of these matters are in preliminary stages of litigation, and
discovery has not yet begun.
The company is currently not able to predict the probable outcome
or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if any.
On November 21, 2018, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County, Tennessee against the
Company, five of its officers or directors, and the seven
underwriters who participated in the company's June 2018 initial
public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
The class action lawsuit is based on allegations that the Company
made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") in connection with the IPO. The lawsuit is
purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's Class A
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, and seeks, among
other things, compensatory damages, costs and expenses (including
attorneys' fees) on behalf of the putative class.
On January 23, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 7, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
On January 30, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.
On February 5, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018, and also alleging a
claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act.
On February 6, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Hamilton County,
Tennessee, by different plaintiffs alleging claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same defendants as in
the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On March 19, 2019, this
case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
On March 8, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018. On May
9, 2019, this case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
On March 14, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by a different plaintiff alleging claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the same
defendants as in the action commenced on November 21, 2018.
The parties have stipulated to extend the time for defendants to
respond to the complaint in this matter pending resolution of the
motions to dismiss filed (or to be filed) in the remaining of the
Tennessee State Court Cases and the Federal Court Cases.
On April 2, 2019, a substantially similar putative class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, by a different plaintiff alleging claims
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act against the Company
and the same five officers and directors as in the action commenced
on November 21, 2018.
Unlike the previously filed complaints, this complaint did not name
as defendants any of the seven underwriters who participated in our
IPO; however, an amended complaint was filed on October 8, 2019
("Amended Federal Complaint") which added all underwriters who
participated in the IPO as defendants.
The three remaining Tennessee State Court Cases have been
consolidated, and discovery is currently stayed pending a decision
on a motion to dismiss filed by the Company and the other
defendants. On June 28, 2019, the defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss the Tennessee State Court Cases for failure to allege facts
sufficient to support a violation of either Section 11, 12 or 15 of
the Securities Act.
On July 18, 2019, the court presiding over the remaining of the
Federal Court Cases issued an order appointing lead plaintiff and
lead counsel.
Pursuant to a stipulation entered in that matter, the appointed
lead plaintiff filed the Amended Federal Complaint on October 8,
2019.
The Amended Federal Complaint is made on behalf of a putative class
that consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Class A common stock of the Company between June 14, 2018 and
November 1, 2018 and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
In addition, the Amended Federal Complaint alleges additional
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") against the Company, its Chief
Executive Office and its Chief Financial Officer. On December 23,
2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Federal
Complaint in its entirety for failure to allege facts sufficient to
state a claim under either the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that Motion on March 9, 2020,
and the Company filed its Reply brief on April 23, 2020.
On June 30, 2020, the court presiding over the remaining Federal
Court Cases issued its ruling granting in part and denying in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Federal Complaint.
The court dismissed entirely plaintiffs’ claims for alleged
violations of the Exchange Act and further held that plaintiffs
failed to state a claim for violation of the Securities Act with
respect to the majority of statements challenged as false or
misleading in the Federal Amended Complaint.
The court, however, held that the Federal Amended Complaint
sufficiently alleged violations of the Securities Act to survive a
motion to dismiss with respect to two statements from the June 2018
IPO registration statement and prospectus that plaintiffs alleged
to be false or misleading, both on theories of alleged
misrepresentations and material omissions.
Accordingly, the court allowed this action to proceed beyond the
pleading stage, but only with respect to the statements deemed
sufficient to support a Securities Act claim when assuming the
truth of plaintiffs' allegations. Defendants' answers to the
Federal Amended Complaint are to be filed by August 14, 2020, and
the case will proceed to the discovery phase.
The complaints in all the actions listed above allege that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the
IPO, and that, as a result of such alleged statements, the
plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes suffered
damages.
The Amended Federal Complaint additionally alleged that the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer made false and/or misleading statements and/or material
omissions in press releases, earnings calls, investor conferences,
television interviews, and filings made with the SEC subsequent to
the IPO; however, claims with respect to those challenged
statements were dismissed in the court's June 30, 2020 ruling on
defendants' motions to dismiss.
U.S. Xpress said, "We believe the allegations made in the
complaints are without merit and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously in these matters."
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
US XPRESS: Putative Class Suit Over Phishing Attack Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, 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
putative class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee arising out of a September 2019
phishing attack on the Company.
On June 5, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee arising out of a September 2019 phishing attack on the
Company.
Plaintiffs allege their personally identifiable information ("PII")
was compromised. Plaintiffs further allege that the Company failed
to implement adequate security measures to prevent the phishing
attack and failed to provide individuals whose PII was potentially
impacted with timely and accurate notice.
Plaintiffs bring the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a putative
class of "all persons residing in the United States whose PII was
exposed" as a result of the phishing attack.
Plaintiffs also assert a Florida-specific subclass. Plaintiffs
assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
confidence, and breach of implied contract.
The Company's deadline for responding to the complaint is August 3,
2020.
U.S. Xpress said, "We believe all of the counts in the complaint
are without merit and intend to defend ourselves vigorously in this
matter."
U.S. Xpress Enterprises, Inc. operates as an asset-based truckload
carrier providing services primarily in the United States. The
Company was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Chattanooga,
Tennessee.
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Gordon Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Valentine & Kebartas,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Shifra Gordon, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Valentine & Kebartas,
LLC, LVNV Funding LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 7:20-cv-07070
(S.D.N.Y., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Valentine and Kebartas, LLC (V&K) is a third-party collection
agency, who provides collection services to public and private
sector clients.[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
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Class Suit Over January 2020 IPO Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Velocity Financial, 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 related to its January 2020 initial public offering of
its common stock.
On July 9, 2020, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
naming the Company, certain of its directors, officers and
shareholders and others alleging violations of securities laws,
including making false and misleading statements and omissions in
the Company's offering materials for the Company's January 2020
initial public offering of its common stock.
The complaints seek unspecified damages and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Velocity said, "We cannot predict the length of time that this
action will be ongoing or the liability, if any, which may arise."
Velocity Financial, Inc. provides property mortgage solutions. The
Company offers property loans for independent real estate investors
and small business owners. Velocity Financial serves customers in
the United States. The company is based in Westlake Village,
California.
VENUS CONCEPT: IPO-Related Litigation Ongoing
---------------------------------------------
Venus Concept 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 class actions
related to its Initial Public Offering (IPO).
Between May 23, 2018 and June 11, 2019, four putative shareholder
class actions complaints were filed against Restoration Robotics,
Inc., certain of its former officers and directors, certain of its
venture capital investors, and the underwriters of the initial
public offering (IPO).
Two of these complaints, Wong v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et
al., No. 18CIV02609, and Li v. Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al.,
No. 19CIV08173 (together, the "State Actions"), were filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, and
assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933, or the Securities Act.
The other two complaints, Guerrini v. Restoration Robotics, Inc.,
et al., No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD and Yzeiraj v. Restoration Robotics,
Inc., et al., No. 5:18-cv-03883-BLF (together, the "Federal
Actions"), were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and assert claims under Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaints all allege, among other things, that the Restoration
Robotics' Registration Statement filed with the SEC on September 1,
2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on October 13, 2017 in
connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.
The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
In the State Actions Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with the
other defendants, successfully demurred to the initial Wong
complaint for failure to state a claim, and secured a stay of both
cases based on the forum selection clause contained in its Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, which designates the
federal district courts as the exclusive forums for claims arising
under the Securities Act.
However, on December 19, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery in
Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg held that exclusive federal forum
provisions are invalid under Delaware law.
Based on this ruling, the San Mateo Superior Court lifted its stay
of State Actions on December 10, 2019. On January 17, 2020,
Plaintiffs in the State Actions filed a consolidated amended
complaint for violations of federal securities laws, alleging again
that, among other things, the Registration Statement filed with the
SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC on
October 13, 2017 in connection with Restoration Robotics' IPO were
inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements of material
fact, omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements
made not misleading and omitted to state material facts required to
be stated therein.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, other equitable
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 24, 2020, the Company demurred to the consolidated
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On March 18, 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court reversed the Chancery
Court’s decision in Sciabacucchi v. Salzberg and held that
exclusive federal forum provisions are valid under Delaware law.
On March 30, 2020, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss
based on its federal forum selection clause. A hearing on the
Company's demurrer and renewed motion to dismiss was held on June
12, 2020. The court has not yet issued any decision.
In the Federal Actions, which have been consolidated under the
caption In re Restoration Robotics, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:18-cv-03712-EJD, Lead Plaintiff Eduardo Guerrini filed
his consolidated amended complaint for violations of federal
securities laws on November 30, 2018.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges again that, among other
things, Restoration Robotics’ Registration Statement filed with
the SEC on September 1, 2017 and the Prospectus filed with the SEC
on October 13, 2017 in connection with the IPO were inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading and omitted to state material facts required to be
stated therein.
On January 29, 2019, Restoration Robotics, Inc., along with certain
of its former officers and directors, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
On October 18, 2019, the District Court granted Restoration
Robotics, Inc. motion to dismiss as to all but two allegedly false
or misleading statements contained in the Company's Prospectus. On
December 9, 2019, the Company filed its answer to the consolidated
amended complaint denying the falsity of these statements, and
discovery is underway.
On May 29, 2020, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company elected not to oppose, and on July
29, 2020, the court certified a class of investors who purchased
shares of the Company common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering.
Venus Concept Inc. (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.) is a
global medical technology company that develops, commercializes,
and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and
hair restoration technologies and related services. The Company's
systems have been designed on a cost-effective, proprietary and
flexible platform that enables it to expand beyond the aesthetic
industry's traditional markets of dermatology and plastic surgery,
and into non-traditional markets, including family and general
practitioners and aesthetic medical spas. The company was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VENUS CONCEPT: Pak Plaintiff Agrees to Dismiss Case
---------------------------------------------------
Venus Concept 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 plaintiff and the Company in the Pak v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237, have filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the plaintiff and
without prejudice as to the putative class.
The Company (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.), completed its
business combination with Venus Concept Ltd., in accordance with
the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization,
dated as of March 15, 2019, as amended from time to time (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Venus Concept Ltd.
and Radiant Merger Sub Ltd., a company organized under the laws of
Israel and a direct, wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company
("Merger Sub"). Under the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub merged with
and into Venus Concept Ltd., with Venus Concept Ltd. surviving as a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Merger"). Following
the completion of the Merger, the Company changed its corporate
name to Venus Concept Inc., and the business conducted by Venus
Concept Ltd. became the primary business conducted by the Company.
A putative shareholder class action complaint captioned Pak v.
Restoration Robotics, Inc., et al., No. 1:19-cv-02237, was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware on
December 6, 2019.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9.
The complaint alleges that the proxy statement, filed with the SEC
by Restoration Robotics, Inc. on September 10, 2019 in connection
with the Merger, contained false or misleading information.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
On February 26, 2020, the District Court appointed Joon Pak as Lead
Plaintiff in the Pak action, and approved his selection of Lead
Counsel.
The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
management intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26,
2020. On July 2, 2020, plaintiff and the Company filed a
stipulation of dismissal with prejudice as to the plaintiff and
without prejudice as to the putative class.
The Company believes that these lawsuits are without merit and
management intends to vigorously defend against these claims.
Venus Concept Inc. (formerly Restoration Robotics, Inc.) is a
global medical technology company that develops, commercializes,
and sells minimally invasive and non-invasive medical aesthetic and
hair restoration technologies and related services. The Company's
systems have been designed on a cost-effective, proprietary and
flexible platform that enables it to expand beyond the aesthetic
industry's traditional markets of dermatology and plastic surgery,
and into non-traditional markets, including family and general
practitioners and aesthetic medical spas. The company was founded
in 2002 and is headquartered in Toronto, Ontario.
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Sept. 14 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Verrica Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each
case can be found at the link provided.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRCA)
Class Period: September 16, 2019 to June 29, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 14, 2020
Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company that develops
treatments for people living with skin diseases. Its lead product
candidate, VP-102, is a drug-device combination of a topical
solution of cantharidin administered through the Company's
single-use precision applicator. The Company is initially
developing VP-102 for the treatment of molluscum contagiosum, or
molluscum, a highly contagious and primarily pediatric viral skin
disease, and common warts.
On June 29, 2020, Verrica disclosed receipt of a letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the Company's
New Drug Application ("NDA") for VP-102 for the treatment of
molluscum contagiosum. The letter identified certain deficiencies
that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing
requirements. Moreover, according to the Company, the FDA's
information requests have included a "specific request related to a
potential safety issue with the applicator that could arise if the
instructions for use were not properly followed."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.06, or nearly 22%,
to close at $11.01 per share on June 30, 2020.
The complaint, filed on July 14, 2020, alleges that throughout the
Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
the Company's proprietary applicator used for VP-102 posed certain
safety risks if the instructions were not properly followed; (2)
that, as a result, Verrica would incorporate certain user features
to mitigate the safety risk; (3) that the addition of the user
feature would require additional testing for stability supportive
data; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, regulatory approval
for VP-102 was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) that, as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Verrica class action go to:
https://bespc.com/VRCA
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results
do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Potter Suit Underway in E.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Verrica 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 company continues to defend a
putative class action suit entitled, Potter v. Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On July 14, 2020, plaintiff Isaiah Potter, or Potter, filed a
putative class action complaint captioned Potter v. Verrica
Pharmaceuticals Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against the Company and certain of its
executive officers, or the Defendants.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated federal securities
laws by, among other things, failing to disclose certain supposed
safety risks attendant to the VP-102 drug-device and likely delays
to regulatory approval of VP-102.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of
Potter and all other persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities between September 16,
2019 and June 29, 2020.
The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend the matter
vigorously. The Company cannot estimate the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss that may result from this action, if any.
Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a dermatology therapeutics company
committed to the development and commercialization of novel
treatments that provide meaningful benefit for people living with
skin diseases. The company is based in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
VIA TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Zettlemoyer Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT ZETTLEMOYER, an individual, on behalf of the State of
California, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all
aggrieved employees v. VIA TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in New York, and
DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV31 362 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Aug. 18, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated
the California Labor Code by not paying proper overtime
compensation to their drivers.
The Plaintiff began his employment with Via in 2019 as a driver,
tasked to provide driving services to Via's customers.
The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and the aggrieved
employees are and were misclassified as independent contractors,
and were not paid proper overtime compensation for all hours worked
in excess of 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a workweek. The
aggrieved employees are and were not also compensated for all hours
worked, were not provided with legally compliant rest periods, were
subject to unlawful deductions, were not provided with meal periods
or compensation for missed meal periods and were not given accurate
wage statements.
Via Transportation, Inc., runs a mobile phone application, whereby
customers can request drivers to take them to specific locations.
Via contracts with drivers, such as the Plaintiff, to provide
transportation services to those customers. Via operates in
different cities and states throughout the United States, including
in the State of California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark D. Potter, Esq.
James M. Treglio, Esq.
POTTER HANDY LLP
8033 Linda Vista Rd., Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92111
Telephone: (858) 375-7385
Facsimile: (888) 422-5191
E-mail: mark@potterhandy.com
jimt@potterhandy.com
VIAGOGO: Sued for Denying Consumer Refunds
------------------------------------------
Eric Fuller, writing for Forbes, reports that Viagogo, the ticket
resale marketplace founded in Europe by Eric Baker after he left
StubHub, continues to have problems. They're drowning in alphabet
soup.
You only really need two spoons to get through the alphabet soup:
one for the issues arising from failure to refund people's money
for tickets which canceled, another for the "anti-competitive" way
in which Viagogo operates.
First, it was the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
objecting to Viagogo's business methods and the recent purchase of
StubHub as anti-consumer. Then, there was a mandated FYI, as the
CMA began requiring Viagogo's wholly-owned subsidiary StubHub to
post warnings on their website, cautioning the tickets they sell
may be invalid.
But wait, there's more:
All of the class action cases filed against StubHub across the US
consolidated before a multidistrict ligation panel in San
Francisco, CA. This MDL is now before US District Judge Haywood
Gilliam. It is where all the claims filed against StubHub for
changing the terms and conditions contained in their Fan Protect
Guarantee after a sale will be heard. The cases are really about
StubHub's ongoing efforts to avoid paying refunds for events that
canceled or indefinitely postponed as promised in their Fan Protect
Guarantee. Refunds are mandatory in 14 of the 50 United States.
They are not optional. StubHub doesn't get a pass because they
don't have money. But, StubHub has been MIA in the 14 states
requiring consumers' refunds: California, Connecticut, Florida,
Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode
Island and Virginia.
And, now there's litigation against Viagogo too. A class-action
case just filed in Florida for Viagogo's failure to adhere to their
"Viagogo Guarantee." Plaintiffs claim Viagogo is denying consumers
refunds that arose because of the mass event cancellations stemming
from the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ultimately there are two questions to be answered: First, what will
courts do when forced to reconcile the claims of consumers promised
refunds by the company's terms and conditions with the behavior of
a company whose revenues are MIA because of the pandemic? Second,
what will the states mandating refunds do when these companies
don't have the money to grant refunds.
Why can't StubHub and Viagogo refund the ticket sales?
They didn't own the tickets sold. They bought them from third-party
suppliers. The only money these companies have is the fees they
charged. Undoubtedly these fees were spent on their costs of
operation. With at least $1 billion in refunds owed (and likely
closer to $2 billion), and having just raised and spent $4.06
billion buying StubHub from eBay EBAY +2.2%, Viagogo's bank account
is DOA.
What's the plan? I've requested a response from Viagogo, and will
update this story if they respond. My impression is it's hang on
for the next year or so until live events return, hope that the
people holding credits don't all redeem them at once or at all, use
the new profits to pay off the old debts, and slowly work through
it. Do I think this will work? No.
I've previously written a long piece predicting that StubHub goes
BK. That article is in the attached Forbes article in which Noah
Kirsch explains why the purchase of StubHub by Viagogo may be the
worst deal ever.
Initially, after live entertainment shut down, I thought StubHub
would file Chapter 11 bankruptcy almost immediately. I never
considered they'd simply sell tickets. Or, that they wouldn't pay
the ticket providers until after the event went forward. I never
thought they'd refuse to refund any money for the tickets they'd
sold for canceled or postponed events. It was and is inconceivable
they'd continue to sell tickets for events which were extremely
unlikely to go forward.
Apparently, you can stay afloat for a long time when you collect
instant cash selling tickets, don't pay for them until the events
happen, which is at best mid-summer 2021 and don't refund the
customer when events cancel. You don't need an MBA to understand
that business plan. It's unsustainable. Soon, both StubHub in
California and Viagogo in London will hear from judges about this
conduct. I don't think the results will be pretty. [GN]
VIVINT SOLAR: San Diego Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 granted final approval of the
settlement in the class action initiated by two former employees
before the San Diego County Superior Court, California.
In February 2018, two former employees, on behalf of themselves and
other direct sellers, named the Company in a putative class and
Private Attorneys General Act action in San Diego County Superior
Court, California, alleging that the Company misclassified those
employees and violated other wage and hour laws.
The Company disputes the allegations and has retained counsel to
defend it in the litigation.
On October 7, 2019, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company has agreed to
pay $7.25 million to settle the claims in the lawsuit, which was
accrued by the Company in general and administrative expense in
2019.
The settlement is subject to court approval.
On July 10, 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: Stockholders Class Suits Underway in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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
putative class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
In October 2019, two separate, purported stockholders filed
separate putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York purportedly on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated.
The lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws and seek
unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
In March 2020, the court consolidated the two actions and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to represent the putative class.
The court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint in the action.
The Company will respond to the amended and consolidated complaint,
and it reserves all of its rights and objections with regard to
jurisdictional challenges and venue as well as any other objections
and motions related to the amended and consolidated complaint.
The Company disputes the plaintiffs' allegations and has retained
counsel to represent it in the litigation. The Company is unable to
estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time.
Vivint said, "If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case,
it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's
results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome
becomes probable and estimable."
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: Suit Over Power Purchase Agreements Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 California court has
issued an order compelling eight of 10 plaintiffs in a putative
class action suit over residential power purchase agreements, to
arbitrate their claims.
In December 2019, 10 customers who signed residential power
purchase agreements named the Company in a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging that the agreements contain unlawful
termination fee provisions.
In March 2020, the court issued an order compelling eight of the
plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. The Company disputes the
allegations in the complaint and has retained counsel to represent
it in the litigation.
The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, at this
time. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is
possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results
of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes
probable and estimable.
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
VIVINT SOLAR: TCPA Case Settlement Wins Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, 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 Washington DC court has granted final
approval to the settlement in the putative class action suit
initiated by an individual in relation to the company's alleged
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
In July 2018, an individual filed a putative class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
purportedly on behalf of himself and other persons who received
certain telephone calls.
The lawsuit alleges that the Company violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and some of its implementing regulations.
The complaint seeks statutory penalties for each alleged violation.
The Company disputes the allegations in the complaint, has retained
counsel and intends to vigorously defend itself in the litigation.
In August 2019, the Company reached a settlement to resolve the
class action on a nationwide basis for a payment of approximately
$1.0 million (including plaintiff's attorneys' fees), which was
accrued by the Company in general and administrative expense in
2019.
On June 2, 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.
Vivint Solar, Inc. provides distributed solar energy primarily to
residential customers in the United States. It owns and installs
solar energy systems through long-term customer contracts. The
company was formerly known as V Solar Holdings, Inc. and changed
its name to Vivint Solar, Inc. in April 2014. Vivint Solar, Inc.
was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Lehi, Utah.
WALMART INC: Hunt Sues in California Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TOMMIE HUNT, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved
Employees v. WALMART, INC.; WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., and DOES l
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG20071190 (Cal. Super., Alameda
Cty., Aug. 18, 2020), is brought on behalf of aggrieved employees,
who have been denied payment for all hours worked, including
overtime hours, and have been forced to wait in security-check
lines while off-the-clock.
The case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and
practices, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees
for work performed while "off-the-clock."
The Defendants' conduct violates California law by knowingly and
willfully requiring the Plaintiff and aggrieved employees to
perform work and/or remain on duty for the benefit of the
Defendants while off-the-clock. The Plaintiff brings these claims
to challenge the Defendants' policies and practices of: (l) failing
to pay Plaintiff and aggrieved employees all minimum wages owed;
(2) failing to pay Plaintiff and aggrieved employees overtime
wages; (3) failing to compensate Plaintiff and aggrieved employees
for all hours worked; and (4) failing to provide Plaintiff and
aggrieved employees accurate, itemized wage statements.
The Plaintiff was employed as a non-exempt overnight stocker by the
Defendants at Walmart locations in Norwalk, California, from July
2005 to September 2019 and in Cerritos, California, from September
2019 to the present.
Walmart Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Ryan M. Hecht, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com
rhecht@schneiderwallace.com
WAYFAIR INC: Massachusetts Putative Class Action Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Wayfair 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 consolidated Massachusetts putative class action
suit has been dismissed with prejudice.
On January 10, 2019 and January 16, 2019, putative securities class
action complaints were filed against the Company and three of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
The two complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, relating to
certain prior disclosures of the Company.
Each plaintiff was seeking to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or acquired stock of the Company between August 2, 2018
and October 31, 2018 and was seeking damages and other relief based
on allegations that the defendants' conduct affected the value of
such stock.
On July 8, 2020, the consolidated complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.
Wayfair Inc., incorporated on August 8, 2014, offers browsing,
merchandising and product discovery for a range of products from
various suppliers. The Company operates through two segments: U.S.
and International. The U.S. segment consists of amounts earned
through product sales through the Company's five sites in the
United States and through sites operated by third parties in the
United States. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.
WELBILT INC: Appeal From Schlimm Case Ruling Dropped
-----------------------------------------------------
Welbilt, 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 Plaintiffs in the purported class action
suit entitled, Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al., have dismissed
their appeal from a court order dismissing their complaint.
The appellants are The Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit
Operating Authority Pension Plan, The Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan Master Trust and The
Plymouth County Retirement Association.
On December 13, 2018, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the Company and certain of its former executive
officers.
The lawsuit was captioned Schlimm v. Welbilt, Inc., et al., and
alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or
omissions in certain of its periodic reports filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") relating to, among other
things, the Company's business operations and the effectiveness of
its internal control over financial reporting.
The lawsuit sought an unspecified amount of damages and an award of
attorney's fees, in addition to other relief. On October 17, 2019,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
On February 6, 2020, the Court issued an order granting defendants'
motion and dismissed the Schlimm lawsuit without prejudice. On
March 30, 2020, the Court issued an amended order of dismissal with
prejudice.
On April 2, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding
the Court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss. The
appeal is pending.
On June 2, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a voluntary dismissal of the
appeal. The Court of Appeals closed the case on June 3, 2020.
Welbilt, Inc., a foodservice equipment company, designs,
manufactures, supply, and services food and beverage equipment for
commercial foodservice market worldwide. The company was formerly
known as Manitowoc Foodservice, Inc. and changed its name to
Welbilt, Inc. in February 2017. Welbilt, Inc. was founded in 1902
and is headquartered in New Port Richey, Florida.
WEST LOT: Katt Sues in Colorado Over Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WEST LOT LLC. The
case is styled as David Katt, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. WEST LOT LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02634-NYW (D.
Colo., Aug. 31, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
West Lot LLC provides retail consulting and leasing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
Phone: (732) 695-3282
Email: ari@marcuszelman.com
WESTSIDE PREPARATORY: Faces Class Action Over Unreturned Deposits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Proctor, writing for CBC News, reports that a Vancouver
novelist wants to certify a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
parents who are seeking the return of thousands of dollars worth of
deposits from a struggling downtown independent school.
Robert French filed a notice of civil claim earlier this month
against the Westside Preparatory Society, which oversees the
Westside School.
The proposed class action follows a difficult spring in which
French claims the school has been dogged by lawsuits, and trouble
paying teachers and debts to the Canada Revenue Agency.
According to the lawsuit, French claims parents like him, who had
intended for their children to attend the school this fall, were
required to pay a deposit of $3,000 last January.
But given questions about the school's financial future, French
says he decided to withdraw his son. He claims many other parents
followed suit, and their deposits have not been returned.
"The parents/guardians all seek return of their deposits," French's
notice of civil claim reads.
"These deposits were paid on the basis of a financially viable and
stable school in September, and this financial viability and
stability became (and still is) extremely questionable."
'Spectre of a collapsing school'
The preparatory society has been named in a series of lawsuits
filed in recent months against Chris Jin, a former Westside society
director, and the company he founded, Eagle Q partners.
The lawsuits accuse Jin of failing to repay hundreds of thousands
of dollars in loans and promising Chinese investors he would get
them permanent resident status in exchange for investment in the
school.
In response to those lawsuits, Westside denied liability, saying it
had no knowledge of any loan agreements which might have been
reached by the people who filed the claims, Jin and Eagle Q
Partners.
French's lawsuit claims the school is believed to have an enrolment
of about 300 students. He says the society hired a new president
and chief executive officer, Graham Baldwin, to "try and save
Westside" this spring.
But the court documents claim Baldwin left parents with the
impression the school's future "was dubious" and the lump sum fee
the school owed Baldwin bounced, "further raising the spectre of a
collapsing school."
'Anything but usual'
French says many parents withdrew their children and started
looking for other schools instead.
"This occurred during the COVID pandemic and parents/guardians were
left scrambling to find placements for their children at other
institutions during a time when business was anything but usual,"
the lawsuit says.
"All students here were forced into trying to find very late
placements with intense competition, including competition amongst
themselves."
French claims that many parents asked for their deposits back.
"The response to this was varied," the notice of civil claim says.
"Responses ranged from there was no money available to you are not
entitled to it, to no response at all."
French wants the lawsuits certified as a class proceeding and is
seeking damages for breach of contract and breach of trust as well
as a return of the deposits.
The school has yet to file a response to the claim in court and did
not respond to an email requesting comment.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. [GN]
WILHELMINA INT'L: Continues to Defend Shanklin and Pressley Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilhelmina 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
two putative class action suits initiated by Alex Shanklin and
Shawn Pressley.
On October 24, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and
others, including Louisa Raske, Carina Vretman, Grecia Palomares
and Michelle Griffin Trotter, in New York State Supreme Court (New
York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in
a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske.
The claims in the Shanklin Litigation initially included breach of
contract and unjust enrichment allegations arising out of matters
similar to the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting
of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other
parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include
other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain
advertisers.
On January 6, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other
defendants also filed motions to dismiss.
On August 11, 2014, the court denied the motion to dismiss as to
Wilhelmina and other of the model management defendants.
Separately, on March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin
Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General
bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims
asserted therein against the model management defendants, and
stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest."
The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the
Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case.
Plaintiffs retained substitute counsel, who filed a Second and then
Third Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint
asserts causes of action for alleged breaches of the plaintiffs'
management contracts with the defendants, conversion, breach of the
duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
The Third Amended Complaint also alleges that the plaintiff models
were at all relevant times employees, and not independent
contractors, of the model management defendants, and that
defendants violated the New York Labor Law in several respects,
including, among other things, by allegedly failing to pay the
models the minimum wages and overtime pay required thereunder, not
maintaining accurate payroll records, and not providing plaintiffs
with full explanations of how their wages and deductions therefrom
were computed.
The Third Amended Complaint seeks certification of the action as a
class action, damages in an amount to be determined at trial, plus
interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
court deems proper.
On October 6, 2015, Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss as to most
of the plaintiffs' claims. The Court entered a decision granting in
part and denying in part Wilhelmina's motion to dismiss on May 26,
2017.
The Court (i) dismissed three of the five New York Labor Law causes
of action, along with the conversion, breach of the duty of good
faith and fair dealing and unjust enrichment causes of action, in
their entirety, and (ii) permitted only the breach of contract
causes of action, and some plaintiffs' remaining two New York Labor
Law causes of action to continue, within a limited time frame. The
plaintiffs and Wilhelmina each appealed, and the decision was
affirmed on May 24, 2018. On August 16, 2017, Wilhelmina timely
filed its Answer to the Third Amended Complaint.
On June 6, 2016, another putative class action lawsuit was brought
against the Company by former Wilhelmina model Shawn Pressley and
others, including Roberta Little (the "Pressley Litigation"), in
New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same counsel
representing the plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation, and
asserting identical, although more recent, claims as those in the
Shanklin Litigation.
The Amended Complaint, asserting essentially the same types of
claims as in the Shanklin action, was filed on August 16, 2017.
Wilhelmina filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
September 29, 2017, which was granted in part and denied in part on
May 10, 2018. Some New York Labor Law and contract claims remain in
the case. Pressley has withdrawn from the case, leaving Roberta
Little as the sole remaining named plaintiff in the Pressley
Litigation. On July 12, 2019, the Company filed its Answer and
Counterclaim against Little.
On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiffs in the Shanklin Litigation (except
Raske) and the Pressley Litigation filed motions for class
certification on their contract claims and the remaining New York
Labor Law Claims. On July 12, 2019, Wilhelmina filed its opposition
to the motions for class certification and filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment against Shanklin, Vretman, Palomares, Trotter and
Little, and a motion for summary judgment against Raske.
By Order Dated May 8, 2020 (the "Class Certification Order"), the
Court denied class certification in the Pressley case, denied class
certification with respect to the breach of contract and alleged
unpaid usage claims, granted class certification as to the New York
Labor Law causes of action asserted by Vretman, Palomares and
Trotter, and declined to rule on Wilhelmina's motions for summary
judgment, denying them without prejudice to be re-filed at a later
date.
On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiffs in both the Shanklin and Pressley
actions filed Notices of Appeal to the Appellate Division. First
Department from those portions of the Class Certification Order on
which Wilhelmina prevailed, and Little also filed a motion for
reargument of the denial of her motion for class certification.
On June 22, 2020, Wilhelmina filed Notices of Cross-Appeal from
those portions of the Class Certification order that granted class
Certification and denied summary judgement. Wilhelmina also opposed
Little's motion for reargument, and that motion is fully briefed.
The Court has direct the parties to non-binding mediation and that
process is underway.
The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation
and Pressley Litigation are without merit and intends to continue
to vigorously defend the actions.
Wilhelmina International, Inc. primarily engages in the fashion
model management business. It specializes in the representation and
management of models, entertainers, artists, athletes, and other
talent to various clients, including retailers, designers,
advertising agencies, print and electronic media and catalog
companies. Wilhelmina International, Inc. was founded in 1967 and
is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
WINS FINANCE: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of Sept. 23 Motion Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on Aug. 23 announced that securities fraud class
action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. who purchased shares within the class periods
listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of
wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to
petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to
speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links
below.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:WINS)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT WINS:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=8757&from=1
Class Period: October 31, 2018 - July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the ultimate repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was
highly uncertain; (ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a
significant impact on the Company's financial and operating
condition; (iii) weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its
financial reporting persisted despite the Company's repeated
assurances to investors that it was taking steps to remediate these
weaknesses; (iv) the foregoing issues, among others, made the
resignation of Wins's independent auditor foreseeably likely; and
(v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
WINS FINANCE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 19 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Wins Finance
Holdings Inc. 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.
Wins Finance Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ:WINS)
WINS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 31, 2018
- July 6, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 23, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/wins-finance-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=8687&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Wins
Finance Holdings Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the ultimate
repayment of the RMB 580 million Guohong Loan was highly uncertain;
(ii) nonpayment of the Guohong Loan would have a significant impact
on the Company's financial and operating condition; (iii)
weaknesses in Wins's internal control over its financial reporting
persisted despite the Company's repeated assurances to investors
that it was taking steps to remediate these weaknesses; (iv) the
foregoing issues, among others, made the resignation of Wins's
independent auditor foreseeably likely; and (v) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky 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]
ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Schulze Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoom Telephonics, 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 initiated by
William Schulze had been dismissed.
On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2020 as lead
plaintiff on behalf of purchasers of Zoom modems in a putative
class action lawsuit against Zoom in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts.
The Schulze Complaint alleged that Zoom modems were sold as new
despite containing refurbished parts.
On July 28, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal that dismissed the Schulze Complaint with prejudice.
The Company does not have any other pending or outstanding material
legal proceedings.
Headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts, Zoom Telephonics, Inc.,
derives its net sales primarily from sales of Internet-related
communication products, principally dial-up modems, fixed and
mobile broadband products, WiFi(R) compatible and Bluetooth(R)
wireless products, and other communication-related products.
ZWICKER & ASSOCIATES: Faces Altman FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zwicker & Associates,
P.C. The case is captioned as Yeshaya Altman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zwicker & Associates,
P.C., Case No. 7:20-cv-06622-VB (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 19, 2020).
The action is a consumer credit lawsuit brought over alleged
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Zwicker & Associates, P.C., is a law firm that represents credit
grantors within the financial services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Michael Barshay, Esq.
Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, 5th Floor
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 203-7600
Facsimile: (516) 706-5055
E-mail: dbarshay@bakersanders.com
csanders@barshaysanders.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has 6,254 Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has 6,254 asbestos-related claims
pending at June 30, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "Claims have been asserted alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos-containing components historically
used in some products manufactured by predecessors of Air & Liquid
("Asbestos Liability"). Air & Liquid, and in some cases the
Corporation, are defendants (among a number of defendants) in cases
filed in various state and federal courts.
"Included as "open claims" are approximately 748 and 665 claims in
2020 and 2019, respectively, classified in various jurisdictions as
"inactive" or transferred to a state or federal judicial panel on
multi-district litigation, commonly referred to as the MDL.
"A substantial majority of the settlement and defense costs was
reported and paid by insurers. Because claims are often filed and
can be settled or dismissed in large groups, the amount and timing
of settlements, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c0CQUE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CarParts.com Units Still Defend Suits at June 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CarParts.com, Inc.'s subsidiaries still defend themselves in
lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of
brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2020.
The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company,
Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. ("WAG"), are
named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages
caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early
1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but
did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance
coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses
arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an
occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not
expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection
with this matter that would be material to its consolidated
financial statements."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/F8yza8
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Lifts Stay in D/C Bankruptcy Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bankruptcy Court has issued an order granting the motion of
certain asbestos claimants to lift stay to permit the movants to
pursue their claims and to recover any judgment or settlement from
and to the extent of any available insurance coverage of D/C
Distribution, LLC, only, according to Kaanapali Land, LLC's Form
10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
August 13, 2020, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a
lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C
Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was
served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief,
reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for
such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that
it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and
indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on
exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that
because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the
policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the
material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed.
Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the
material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the
terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted;
that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys'
fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have
been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to
recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has
paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its
obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and
an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious
defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In
addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from
plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by
D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such
action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit
continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement
with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land
provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by
D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy
at issue in this lawsuit.
"In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by
plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount
was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured
indebtedness.
"Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to
obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities,
D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern
District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under
Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July
2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially
without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed
claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately
US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany
debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal
injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with
asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of
approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that
a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C
that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the
trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however,
that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in
the liquidation of D/C.
"On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay
Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift
stay") in connection with the D/C bankruptcy proceeding. The
motion seeks the entry of an order, among other things, modifying
the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants
to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C
Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement
solely from any available insurance coverage. Various oppositions
to the motion to lift stay have been filed, and the matter was
heard and taken under advisement in April 2020.
"On July 21, 2020, the bankruptcy court issued an order granting
the motion to lift stay to permit the movants to pursue their
claims and to recover any judgment or settlement from and to the
extent of any available insurance coverage of D/C Distribution,
LLC, only.
"The parties in the D/C and in the prior pending Oahu Sugar
bankruptcy have reached out to each other to determine if there is
any interest in pursuing settlements of the claims in the prior
Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the D/C bankruptcy insofar as the
Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. Such discussions
are taking place. There are no assurances that a settlement of any
or all claims and controversies as relating to Waipio can be
reached."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i3z8EI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 177 Claims at June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 177 asserted claims
related to asbestos exposure as of June 30, 2020, according to Duke
Energy Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous
claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related
to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily
injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos
in connection with construction and maintenance activities
conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of
June 30, 2020, there were 118 asserted claims for non-malignant
cases with cumulative relief sought of up to US$27 million, and 59
asserted claims for malignant cases with cumulative relief sought
of up to US$20 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas'
experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of
these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/Lbub46
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Group Assumes Hannover Re's Legacy Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Limited has assumed certain legacy asbestos,
environmental and workers' compensation exposures as part of its
August 6, 2020 novation agreement with Hannover Reuck SE and an
affiliate, according to Enstar's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "On August 6, 2020, we completed a novation
agreement with Hannover Reuck SE and an affiliate ("Hannover Re"),
pursuant to which we assumed certain legacy asbestos, environmental
and workers' compensation exposures. In the transaction, we
assumed gross loss reserves of approximately US$200.0 million,
which was equal to the net reinsurance premium consideration
received in the transaction."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/J8GGGn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Had $208.6MM Loss Reserves at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd. had net asbestos loss reserves of $208.6
million, or 97.7%, of total net A&E reserves, at June 30, 2020,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "In 2015, we sold Mt. McKinley to Clearwater
Insurance Company. Concurrently with the closing, we entered into
a retrocession treaty with an affiliate of Clearwater. Per the
retrocession treaty, we retroceded 100% of the liabilities
associated with certain Mt. McKinley policies, which had been
reinsured by Bermuda Re. As consideration for entering into the
retrocession treaty, Bermuda Re transferred cash of US$140.3
million, an amount equal to the net loss reserves as of the closing
date. Of the US$140.3 million of net loss reserves retroceded,
US$100.5 million were related to A&E business. The maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty will be US$440.3
million, equal to the retrocession payment plus US$300.0 million.
We will retain liability for any amounts exceeding the maximum
liability retroceded under the retrocession treaty.
"On December 20, 2019, the retrocession treaty was amended and
included a partial commutation. As a result of this amendment and
partial commutation, gross A&E reserves and correspondingly
reinsurance receivable were reduced by US$43.4 million. In
addition, the maximum liability permitted to be retroceded
increased to US$450.3 million."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/zVjIuj
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Suits at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
IntriCon Corporation continues to face asbestos lawsuits related to
its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020.
IntriCon Corporation states, "The Company is a defendant along with
a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have
or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of
exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold
by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the
discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March
2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the
Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid
claims against the Company.
"Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the
primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been
exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and
insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has
other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company
believes afford coverage for later years.
"Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and
insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either
ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have
denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a
reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to
investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to
all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos,
the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense
and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess
insurance policies.
"However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have
deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the
Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects
that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further,
many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and
thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or
operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for
asbestos-related lawsuits.
"The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some
of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the
number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits,
and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under
which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the
ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the
Company's consolidated financial position or results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i1nY6a
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Talks with Fireman's Fund Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC is still in talks with Fireman's Fund regarding
insurance coverage on pending asbestos lawsuits involving the
Company, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "On February 12, 2014, counsel for Fireman's
Fund, the carrier that has been paying defense costs and
settlements for the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases, stated that it
would no longer advance fund settlements or judgments in the
Kaanapali Land asbestos cases due to the pendency of the D/C and
Oahu Sugar bankruptcies.
"In its communications with Kaanapali Land, Fireman's Fund
expressed its view that the automatic stay in effect in the D/C
bankruptcy case bars Fireman's Fund from making any payments to
resolve the Kaanapali Land asbestos claims because D/C Distribution
is also alleging a right to coverage under those policies for
asbestos claims against it. However, in the interim, Fireman's
Fund advised that it presently intends to continue to pay defense
costs for those cases, subject to whatever reservations of rights
may be in effect and subject further to the policy terms.
"Fireman's Fund has also indicated that to the extent that
Kaanapali Land cooperates with Fireman's Fund in addressing
settlement of the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases through
coordination with its adjusters, it is Fireman's Fund's present
intention to reimburse any such payments by Kaanapali Land,
subject, among other things, to the terms of any lift-stay order,
the limits and other terms and conditions of the policies, and
prior approval of the settlements.
"Kaanapali Land continues to pursue discussions with Fireman's Fund
in an attempt to resolve the issues, however, Kaanapali Land is
unable to determine what portion, if any, of settlements or
judgments in the Kaanapali Land asbestos cases will be covered by
insurance."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/i3z8EI
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Still Defends Suits at July 3
----------------------------------------------------------
Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 3, 2020, that based on information currently available, it
does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending
asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on its
business, financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows.
The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the
Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant
in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos within a facility of the Company or integrated into
certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the
named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related
claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity
or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have been
resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either
individually or in the aggregate. Based on information currently
available, we do not believe that the resolution of any currently
pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/OB62pR
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parsons Suit vs. Liggett Still Stayed at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that a stay remains in effect for the
asbestos-related class action case styled, Parsons v. AC & S Inc.,
wherein its subsidiary Liggett Group LLC is a defendant.
The Company states, "In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a
purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia
residents who allegedly have claims arising from their exposure to
cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The operative complaint seeks
to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages on behalf
of the putative class. The case is stayed as a result of the
December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/vTAIKT
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Winchesters File Exposure Claims vs. Lumara Health
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie and Matt Winchester have filed a complaint for claimed
exposures to asbestos against a list of defendants, including AMAG
Pharma USA, Inc. d/b/a Lumara Health Inc., according to AMAG
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 17, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020.
The Company states, "On June 5, 2020, Carrie Winchester and Matt
Winchester filed a complaint against a list of defendants for
claimed exposures to asbestos. AMAG Pharma USA, Inc. d/b/a Lumara
Health Inc. was named as a defendant because Nesher
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of K-V Pharmaceutical Company
("KV") (Lumara Health's predecessor company), sold Nystatin powder
that Ms. Winchester claims she may have used during her employment
as a medical professional. We acquired Lumara Health in November
2014, a year after KV emerged from bankruptcy protection, at which
time it, along with its then-existing subsidiaries, became our
wholly-owned subsidiary. The plaintiffs allege that Ms. Winchester
developed injuries as a direct and proximate result of inhalation
of asbestos dust particles and fibers from defendants' products.
We have obtained an extension of time to answer and are negotiating
for a dismissal with counsel for the Plaintiffs. We are currently
unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate the range of
potential loss associated with this matter, if any."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://is.gd/c0mlS1
*********
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 ***