/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200916.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 16, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 186
Headlines
AIR EVAC EMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Buford Suit Alleges
AIR METHODS: Dequasie, et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
AIRBUS SE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 5 Deadline
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Faces Rollman Employment Suit in Calif.
ANAPLAN INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Settles Powerbeats 2 Class Action Lawsuit for $9.75MM
APPLE INC: Sued by Andino Over Deceptive Sale of Digital Content
AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Victims' Class Action Contain Obvious Errors
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro et al. Seek to Certify Classes
BANK OF AMERICA: Durkee Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Donegan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Pharma Pricing Antitrust Suit Ongoing
BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
BEYOND MEAT: Bid to Dismiss Tran Putative Class Suit Pending
BEYOND MEAT: Massaro Drops Class Suit Over Spam Texts
BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
BLINK CHARGING: RM LAW Announces Securities Class Action
BRASKEM S.A.: Pomerantz LLP Announces Securities Class Action
C.R. BARD: Williams Products Liability Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
CABOT OIL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
CARE ABOVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Bailey Says
CARRIZO OIL: Hearing Today on Conditional Class Certification Bid
CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in N.Y. Over IPO
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Certification of Collective FLSA Class Sought
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed
CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Concluded
CHINA XD PLASTIC: Defends Faith Dawn Merger Related Suits
CIBC: Ontario Court Rules Again for Employees in Overtime Suit
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Files Suit in Pennsylvania
CITY OF LINCOLN: May Face Lawsuit Citing Damages From Mandates
CLARK COUNTY, NV: CM Sues Over Neglect for Needs of Special Kids
CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action over 2016 Merger Ongoing
COMENITY BANK: Batson Sues in C.D. California Over TCPA Violation
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Strauch FLSA Suit
CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Trainers Suit Granted Class Status
CONNIE HORTON: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
CORE & MAIN: Perez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
CORKY MESSNER: N.H. College Democrats Run Ads Seeking Class Action
COUNTRY PREFERRED: Munao Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
COUSINS FOUR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Najarro-Avalos Alleges
CVS PHARMACY: Hyams Appeals Ruling in Chalian Suit to 9th Cir.
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend PPE Class Suit in Calif.
DOLLAR TREE: Deal Reached in Distribution Center Employee's Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Still Facing Suit over Zantac
DOLLAR TREE: Suits Against Family Dollar Over ADA Breach Ongoing
EASTMAN KODAK: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Over Ultimate Team Loot Boxes
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Abernethy et al. Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
EXXON MOBIL: Faces Centi TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
FASTLY INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Class Action
FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Chapman Sues Over 34% Drop in Share Price
FIRST SOLAR: George Huerta Seeks to Certify Class
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 28 Deadline
FRANKLIN MINT LLC: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA
FRICTIONLESS WORLD: Sale of Shelving System to Conesco Approved
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
GEO GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
GOLDCO DIRECT: Judson Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in Commodities-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Granted
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit in NY Denied
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Dismiss Amended Uber IPO Complaint Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Ongoing
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Final Approval
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Camping World IPO Suit in NY
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Sea Limited IPO Related Suit
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Varlaro Sues Over Deceptive Booster Seat Labels
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
GULF STATES: Nave Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
GULFPORT ENERGY: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit
HDFC BANK: Faces Arora Securities Suit Over Decline in ADSs Price
HOOK-N-HAUL LLC: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Gerber Alleges
HORIZON FREIGHT: Nash Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
ICBC: Deny Wrongdoing in $900-Million Class Action Suit
INTEL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 28 Deadline
J.B. HUNT: Williams Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
J2 GLOBAL: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Violations
JOBTRACKS INC: Cox Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
KAI USA: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles ADA Suit Claims
KELLER WILLIAMS: No Temporary TCPA Respite for Firm in Becker Case
KENMORE PHILATELIC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
KENTUCKY: Bar Owners File Class Action v. Gov. Beshear
KODAK COMPANY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
KROGER COMPANY: Powell Seeks to Certify Assistant Managers' Class
LENDING SOLUTIONS: Faces Brannon Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Middleton Files Suit in Ohio
LILIS 200: Chen Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Moore Seeks Refunds Amid COVID-19 Closure
LONGFIN CORP: Malik Appeals Orders in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
LUMOS PHARMA: Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Nguyen Pending
MACY'S WEST: Pitman Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Final OK
MARION, FL: Johnson Seeks to Identity Medically-Unsafe Subclass
MD BUYING: Fuszner TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
MEDCIPHERS LLC: Fails to Pay HHAs' Overtime Wages, Lowe Suit Says
MEDICREDIT INC: Miles Sues Over Unsolicited Debt Collection Calls
MEREDITH CORP: Discovery Stayed in Iowa Putative Class Suit
MICROELECTRONICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit for $3MM
MIDLAND CREDIT: Matyas Asserts Breach of FDCPA
MONARCH RECOVERY: Oleson Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
MYLAN NV: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending
MYLAN NV: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Granted
MYLAN NV: EpiPen Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending in Minnesota
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
NEW YORK: Rupp Baase Files Suit v. Gov. Over Wedding Guest Limit
NEW YORK: Stiegman Appeals N.D.N.Y. Text Order to Second Circuit
NEW YORK: Stiegman Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
NISSAN NORTH: Ayala Sues Over Mechanics/Technicians' Unpaid Wages
NORTH CAROLINA: Correctional Officers Seek Class Status
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action
ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Remind of Oct. 19 Deadline
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: DeMarquis Alleges Violation of TCPA
OSC SPORTS: Calcano Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
OTELCO INC: Plumley Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Future Fiber
PAYSIGN INC: Smith & Duvall Suit Dismissed, 2 Others Pending
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Kehoe Law Firm Probes Investors' Securities Claims
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Hessel Suit Over Decline of Share Price
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed
PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Curtis Securities Suit Balks at Sanofi Sale
PROGENITY INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Announces Class Action
PROSHARES ULTRA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
PROTEIN SOLUTIONS: 2-Mile Radius Residents Can Join Class Action
PTKW INC: Mayhew Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
PURE FISHING: Chung Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
QALIPU FIRST NATION: Class Action Certified
RAMEN MEIJIN: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
RED ROBIN: Settlement Underway in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits
REXAHN PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Suits Over Ocuphire Merger
RISEANDSHINE CORP: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
SALONCEUTICALS INC: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Paguada Alleges
SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Nix Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending
SANDERSON FARMS: California Consumer Class Suit Ongoing
SERVISFIRST BANK: Fla. Fed. Ct. Dismisses PPP Agent Fee Suit
SIERRA INCOME: Anderson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
SOUTH AFRICA: Foreign Nationals File Suit v. Dept. of Home Affairs
SPARKLES CAR: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. New York
SPARTAN RACE: Fruitstone Seeks Class Status for Insurance Fee Suit
SVT DESIGNS: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Price Sues Over Monopoly of Consumer Telescopes
TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Class Suit
TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Williams Files TCPA Suit in Indiana
TEXAS: Commissioner Sued Over Denial of Hepatitis C Treatment
TRYP TECHNOLOGIES: Chan Sues in California Over Violation of TCPA
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Pettai Files Suit in California
UNITED STATES: Hurley Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in Fla.
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Arredondo Seeks Refund Amid COVID Crisis
VALENTINO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
VAXART INC: Faces Hovhannisyan Securities Suit in N.D. California
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
VIAGOGO: Faces Class Action Over Refunds
WELLS FARGO BANK: Delpapa Files Suit in California
WEST VIRGINIA: Certification of General Class & Subclasses Sought
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
WESTPAC: HESTA Signs Up to Potentially Massive Claim
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: City of St. Clair Challenges Adoption of SRP
ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Schulze Complaint Dismissed
[*] Employers Likely to Face a Wave of COVID-19 Suit Litigation
[*] Pharmacy Chains Sued for Refusing Prescription for Medication
*********
AIR EVAC EMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Buford Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BURFORD and IAN CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AIR EVAC EMS, INC. D/B/A AIR EVAC
LIFETEAM, Case No. 4:20-cv-01064 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 13, 2020), arises
from the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the proposed
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as staff.
Air Evac EMS, Inc., doing business as Air Evac Lifeteam, provides
air medical services. The Company offers clinical care, fixed wing
operations, air ambulance, and operations and completion center
services. Air Evac Lifeteam operates throughout the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Robert Cowan, Esq.
Joe Denger, Esq.
COWAN LAW OFFICE, PLC
2401 Regency Road, Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40503
Telephone: 859.523.8883
Facsimile: 859.523.8885
E-mail: kylaw@cowanlawky.com
jdenger@cowanlawky.com
- and -
ARNOLD & MILLER, PLC
Charles W. Arnold, Esq.
Christopher D. Miller, Esq.
401 West Main Street, Suite 303
Lexington, KY 40507
Telephone: 859.381.9999
Facsimile: 859.389.6666
E-mail: carnold@arnoldmillerlaw.com
cmiller@arnoldmillerlaw.com
AIR METHODS: Dequasie, et al. Seek to Certify Two Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LEE SCARLETT, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS
CORPORATION and ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-01951-RBJ (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs Dequasie, et al. ask
the Court for an order granting their motion for class
certification and certifying the following classes:
NON-SIGNING CLASS
"all persons billed by Defendants for air ambulance
transportation from a location in Oklahoma who did not sign,
personally or through an authorized person, an Authorization
and Consent Form"; and
SIGNING CLASS
"all persons billed by Defendants for air ambulance
transportation from a location in Oklahoma who signed,
personally or through an authorized person, an Authorization
and Consent Form."
According to the complaint, the Defendants have realized huge
profits from a business model in which they unilaterally set the
price for services their customers cannot refuse. Whether the
Defendants can recover against consumers for these services is the
central question in this case -- one that can be answered by the
Court on a class-wide basis.
The Plaintiffs contend that the process of an emergency air flight
conducted by the Defendants is simple. First, a medical
professional initiates the call for an air ambulance. The patient
cannot initiate the call for service. Second, the medical
professional certifies that the use of an air ambulance is
medically necessary to address a major medical emergency. Third,
upon dispatch, the Defendants' employees vigorously attempt to
secure a signature from the patient or an authorized representative
on the Authorization and Consent Form ("A&C Form"). The A&C Form
has financial responsibility language concealed in the body of the
document. While Defendants make every attempt to get the A&C
signed, the Defendants concede that sometimes the patient cannot
sign the A&C Form, so the A&C Form includes space for the crew to
explain why the A&C Form cannot be signed. Fourth, the patient is
transported to a facility. Defendants know in advance the rotor
base charge and the expected mileage charge. But Defendants do not
put those amounts on the A&C Form. Moreover, no attempt is made to
determine whether Defendants are an in-network provider. Regardless
of whether a patient signs the A&C form prior to transport,
Defendants still bill patient their regular charges in all cases.
Air Methods Corporation is an American privately owned helicopter
operator. The air medical division provides emergency medical
services to 70,000-100,000 patients every year, and operates in 48
states and Haiti. Rocky Mountain Holdings LLC provides air medical
transportation services utilizing a fleet of helicopters and
fixed-wing aircraft.
A copy of the Dequasie Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class dated
Sept. 3, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2ZEZuxd at no extra charge.[CC]
The Dequasie Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Plachy, Esq.
Abby C. Harder, Esq.
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER
CHRISTIE LLP
1200 Seventeenth St., Suite 3000
Denver, CO 80202-5835
Telephone: (303) 623-9000
Facsimile: (303) 623-9222
- and -
Edward L. White, Esq.
EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.
829 East 33rd Street
Edmond, OK 73013
Telephone: (405) 810-8188
Facsimile: (405) 608-0971
- and -
Mario A. Pacella, Esq.
STROM LAW FIRM, LLC
6923 N. Trenholm Rd., Suite 200
Columbia, SC 29206
Telephone: (803) 252-4800
Facsimile: (803) 252-4801
AIRBUS SE: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 5 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Airbus
SE. Investors have until the deadline 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 this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
AMERICAN MERCHANDISING: Faces Rollman Employment Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American
Merchandising Specialists Inc. The case is captioned as Shane
Rollman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
American Merchandising Specialists Inc., a North Carolina
corporation, Automated Management Systems Inc., a Virginia
corporation, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
34-2020-00283600-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super., Sacramento Cty., Aug. 21,
2020).
The lawsuit arises from employment-related issues.
American Merchandising Specialists Inc. is a professional services
provider headquartered in North Carolina. Automated Management
Systems, Inc. is a computer integrated systems design company based
in Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Spivak, Esq.
THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM
16530 Ventura Blvd., Suite 312
Encino, CA 91436-4578
Telephone: (818) 582-3086
Facsimile: (818) 582-2561
E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com
ANAPLAN INC: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Anaplan, Inc. ("Anaplan" or "the
Company") (NYSE: PLAN) investors that acquired securities between
November 21, 2019 and February 26, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email.
According to the complaint, the Anaplan made misleading and/or
misleading statements to the market. Anaplan suffered from
challenges in relation to both its sales organization as well as
its strategic execution. Due to these challenges, Anaplan failed to
close major deals. These failures made Anaplan's claim of
"calculated billings growth" baseless. Throughout the class period,
the Company's public statements were false and/or materially
misleading. Investors suffered damages when the market learned the
truth about Anaplan.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
Tel No: 310-692-8883
E-mail: lesley@portnoylaw.com [GN]
APPLE INC: Settles Powerbeats 2 Class Action Lawsuit for $9.75MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
hothardware.com reports that there's been a lot of courtroom drama
surrounding Apple over the previous weeks, but at least one ongoing
case involving the company has finally been [preliminarily]
settled. The class action lawsuit was brought against Apple way
back in 2017 regarding a defect in its Powerbeats 2 headphones,
which first entered the market in 2015.
There were multiple issues raised in the class action lawsuit
including claims that Apple misrepresented the battery life of the
headphones. It was alleged that the Powerbeats 2 would fail to hold
a significant charge after just "minimal" usage. It was also
pointed out that Apple's claims of sweat and water resistance for
the Powerbeats 2 was false, and that "Apple did not properly repair
or replace defective Powerbeats 2 within the one-year limited
warranty period."
In simple terms, the plaintiffs allege that the build quality of
the Powerbeats 2 was "shoddy" given the problems inherent with
them. Rather than continue to drag out the legal fight, Apple has
agreed to pay out $9.75 million dollars to settle the lawsuit.
Despite the relatively paltry payout, Apple is denying any claims
of unlawful conduct, wrongdoing or liability.
You can submit a claim to get your share of the settlement pool by
visiting the following website that has been setup for the lawsuit.
You'll need to submit your claim by November 20th, and you could be
eligible for up to $189 with a validated proof of purchase (the
original MSRP was $199).
However, it should be noted that the amount that you actually
receive will be dependent on how many people submit claims, if you
have a valid proof of purchase, and how many times you had warranty
repairs performed (or received replacement Powerbeats 2
headphones). You can read about the requirements and the
complicated points system in the FAQ here.
It's reported that a final hearing on the class action lawsuit will
be held on January 15th, and class action members will receive
their monetary reward upon approval of the settlement. [GN]
APPLE INC: Sued by Andino Over Deceptive Sale of Digital Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ANDINO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 2:20-at-00803 (E.D. Cal., Aug.
13, 2020), alleges that the Defendant is engaged in deceptive
business scheme over the sale of its digital content.
The Defendant is one of the world's largest computer and phone
manufacturers and retailers, and includes among its myriad services
the option for consumers to Rent or Buy movies, television shows,
music and other media (the "Digital Content") for a fee. Consumers
can "Buy" or "Rent," and subsequently access their Digital Content,
in a variety of ways via a smart phone, computer or tablet, and by
using certain of Defendant's "iTunes" applications or "apps," which
are the platforms where consumers and Defendant interact. Consumers
can also access their Digital Content by using a palm-sized,
plastic black box manufactured by Defendant called Apple TV. When
connected to a television set, it can be used to "Buy" or "Rent,"
and subsequently access, among other things, the Digital Content.
According to the complaint, reasonable consumers will expect that
the use of a "Buy" button and the representation that their Digital
Content has been "Purchased" means that the consumer has paid for
full access to the Digital Content and, like any other purchased
product, that access cannot be revoked. In other words, just like
Best Buy cannot come into a person's home to repossess the movie
DVD that such person purchased from it, Defendant should not be
able to remove Digital Content from its customers' Purchased
folders.
Unfortunately for consumers, who chose the "Buy" option, this is
deceptive and untrue, according to the complaint. Rather, the ugly
truth is that the Defendant secretly reserves the right to
terminate the consumers' access and use of the Digital Content at
any time, and has done so on numerous occasions, leaving the
consumer without the ability to enjoy their already-bought Digital
Content. The Defendant's representations are misleading because
they give the impression that the Digital Content is
purchased--i.e. the person owns it--when in fact that is not true
because the Defendant or others may revoke access to the Digital
Content at any time and for any reason.
Apple Inc. designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers
and related personal computing and mobile communication devices
along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals,
and networking solutions. Apple sells its products worldwide
through its online stores, its retail stores, its direct sales
force, third-party wholesalers, and resellers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
Carlos F. Ramirez, Esq.
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
Telephone: (212) 643-0500
E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com
cramirez@reesellp.com
- and -
George V. Granade, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
- and -
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 303-0552
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
AUSTRALIA: Robodebt Victims' Class Action Contain Obvious Errors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Henriques-Gomes, writing for The Guardian, reports that the
class action lawsuit brought on behalf of Australia's robodebt
victims "does not look ready" and contains some "obvious errors", a
federal court judge has said.
In a rebuke three weeks before the trial, Justice Bernard Murphy on
Aug. 31 criticised an application from Gordon Legal to add
exemplary damages to its claims for unjust enrichment and damages.
The firm wants to claim exemplary damages -- which are intended to
punish a defendant -- by arguing that the commonwealth knew the
botched Centrelink program was unlawful.
But Murphy told a pre-trial hearing the updated case brought on
behalf of about 600,000 current and past welfare recipients
contained some "obvious errors".
"This pleading does not look ready," he said.
He said he was inclined to refuse the application but did not want
to "lock out hundreds of thousands of claimants on the basis of
inadequate pleadings".
Bernie Quinn QC, for Gordon Legal, said the firm had done its best
in a short time frame. He said the firm could "elaborate" on the
pleading as the discovery process continued.
But Murphy noted that the trial date was only three weeks away and
that the class action was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
"You're telling me that various clauses need to be fixed up," he
said. "Come back to me with a statement of claim in its best form
… Today I would dismiss it."
Murphy will consider Gordon Legal's request to amend its statement
of claim at a future hearing.
The federal government committed in May to repaying $721m in
unlawful debts raised over four and a half years but is resisting
the class action's claims for interest and damages.
It conceded in November that the income averaging method -- which
used yearly Australian Taxation Office pay summaries to allege
welfare recipients has misreported their income on a fortnightly
basis -- was unlawful.
In what it hopes to be its updated claim, Gordon Legal argues the
commonwealth knew the scheme was unlawful because of the
"self-evident" fact that it also knew these calculations were not
correct.
Michael Hodge QC, for the commonwealth, said this did not mean the
government also knew the "debts were unlawful".
Murphy appeared to agree, saying he was "quite unlikely" to accept
the argument made by Gordon Legal. The firm's claim would need to
include "actual knowledge of unlawfulness".
"Telling me it's obvious is not going to cut it," Murphy said.
He said Gordon Legal would also need to identify which ministers or
public servants knew the debts were illegal, which it had not done
it its updated pleadings.
Quinn said the firm would see what was "available" to it as more
documents were discovered and "tidy up what's required".
Murphy also raised the prospect of a delay to the 21 September
trial date, saying he did not want the trial to "run like a dog's
breakfast".
"If I have this view on a pleading, what's the evidence going to be
like?" he said.
But Quinn and Hodge agreed there was no need to delay the trial.
Quinn said the trial would likely last six or seven days and the
bulk would be "legal argument and some document tender".
Terry Carney, a former administrative appeals tribunal member who
ruled against the scheme several times in 2017, will be among the
firm's witnesses, the court heard.
Figures released to a Senate inquiry on Aug. 31 showed the
government had now paid out $568m in refunds to 297,859 people over
339,720 debts.
Guardian Australia has revealed that the commonwealth has also
identified hundreds of unlawful debts issued before the robodebt
scheme and which it has declined to pay back. [GN]
BAIDU INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Oct. 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers and those who otherwise acquired the securities of
Baidu, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDU) between April 8, 2016 and August 13,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19,
2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first
filed by the firm. 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. 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-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.
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
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
BANK OF AMERICA: Alfaro et al. Seek to Certify Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS ALFARO and HENRIETTA I.
EGBUNIKE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; and BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:19-cv-22762-MGC (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying the proposed Classes;
"Undisclosed FX Fee Class" comprised of:
"all individuals in the United States who, at any time
between July 3, 2014 5 and May 7, 2015, held a personal
checking account with Bank of America that was assessed
(and was not refunded by Bank of America) an
"international transaction fee" attributable to a debit
card transaction"; and
"Unnotified FX Fee Class" comprised of:
"all individuals in the United States who, at any time
between May 8, 2015 and the present, held a personal
checking account with Bank of America that was opened
prior to May 8, 2015 and was assessed (and was not
refunded by Bank of America) an "international transaction
fee" attributable to a debit card transaction. (SAC
section 42-43.)."
Excluded from both the Undisclosed FX Fee Class and the
Unnotified FX Fee Class are any individuals who received a
temporary debit card at the time of account opening, as
reflected in BANA's records. The Undisclosed FX Fee Class
and the Unnotified.
2. appointing themselves as class representatives;
3. appointing their counsel at Hedin Hall LLP and Ahdoot &
Wolfson, PC as class counsel on behalf of the Classes.
The Plaintiffs contend that BANA's assessment of 3% ITF prior to
May 8, 2015, and its continued assessment of the ITF after May 8,
2015 for account holders who opened accounts prior to that date,
constituted a clear breach of the Deposit Agreement (as well as a
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, procedurally
and substantively unconscionable conduct, and unjust enrichment, as
alleged in the SAC). The Plaintiffs add, most importantly for
purposes of this Motion, all of the issues of fact and law in this
case are common to all Class members, and predominate over any
possible individual issues.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and each proposed class
member opened a personal deposit account with BANA prior to May 8,
2015. As BANA's standardized account-opening documents reflect, all
such accounts were governed by the DA and the incorporated Personal
Schedule of Fees -- a standardized and uniformly imposed contract
that every personal deposit account holder was required to accept
in order to open an account.
Bank of America, National Association operates as a bank. The Bank
offers saving and current account, investment and financial
services, online banking, and mortgage and non-mortgage loan
facilities, as well as issues credit card and business loans. Bank
of America serves clients worldwide.
A copy of the Company's Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Rq5yFh at no
extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes are:
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
David W. Hall, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Ave, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Facsmile: (305) 200-8801
E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com
dhall@hedinhall.com
- and -
Robert Ahdoot, Esq
Henry Kelston, Esq
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
10728 Lindbrook Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
hkelston@ahdootwolfson.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Durkee Appeals S.D. Calif. Ruling to 9th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Andrea F. Durkee filed an appeal from a court ruling
issued in her lawsuit entitled Andrea Durkee v. Bank of America,
N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-00347-DMS-LL, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, San Diego.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2,
2020, the nature of suit is stated as other contract.
The Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational
investment bank and financial services company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina with central hubs in New York City, London, Hong
Kong, and Toronto.
The appellate case is captioned as Andrea Durkee v. Bank of
America, N.A., Case No. 20-55920, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:
-- Appellant Andrea F. Durkee's opening brief is due on
November 2, 2020;
-- Appellee Bank of America, N.A.'s answering brief is due on
December 2, 2020; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ANDREA F. DURKEE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Scott G. Braden, Esq.
Todd David Carpenter, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH
1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 762-1910
Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
E-mail: sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
KALIEL PLLC
1875 Connecticut Ave NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20009
Telephone: (202) 615-3948
E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
- and -
Jae Kook Kim, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
117 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 600
Pasadena, CA 91105
Telephone: (626) 550-1250
E-mail: ekim@carlsonlynch.com
Defendant-Appellee BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., is represented by:
Amanda L. Groves, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
300 South Tryon Street, 16th Floor
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 350-7745
E-mail: agroves@winston.com
- and -
Shawn R. Obi, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 615-1763
E-mail: sobi@winston.com
BANKERS LIFE: Faces Donegan Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
LIZ DONEGAN, on behalf of the State of California and Aggrieved
Employees v. BANKERS LIFE AND CASUALTY COMPANY; COLONIAL PENN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. RG20071467 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty.,
Aug. 21, 2020), is an enforcement action brought on behalf of the
State of California for the Defendants' systematic violations of
California labor law against their current and former employees.
The Plaintiff brings this action to challenge the Defendants'
policies and practices of (l) misclassifying the Plaintiff and
Aggrieved Employees as independent contractors instead of
employees; (2) failing to compensate these employees for all hours
worked; (3) failing to pay them minimum wage as required by
California law; (4) failing to pay them overtime wages; ( 5)
failing to authorize and permit them to take rest breaks to which
they are entitled by law and to pay premium compensation for missed
breaks; (6) failing to reimburse them for necessary business
expenditures; (7) failing to provide them accurate, itemized wage
statements; and (8) failing to timely pay them wages owed upon the
termination of employment.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants between July 2018 and
August 2019 as an agent in Salida, California. The Plaintiff seeks
to recover penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees for the
Defendants' violations pursuant to California's Private Attorneys
General Act.
Bankers Life and Casualty Company and Colonial Penn Life Insurance
Company are insurance providers, who employ, among others,
insurance agents, career field agents, policy agents, and sales
agents, in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carolyn Hunt Cottrel, Esq.
David C. Leimbach, Esq.
Kristabel Sandoval, 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
ksandoval@schneiderwallace.com
BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey is still pending.
Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were
subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf
of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims
submitted by Philidor for certain Company-branded drugs between
January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by
submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement
requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the
identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the
resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay
waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the
insured's consent to renew the prescription.
The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern
of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the
RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class
unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute.
A decision on the Company's motion to dismiss this complaint is
pending.
The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to
defend itself vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Generic Pharma Pricing Antitrust Suit Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health 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 company's subsidiaries
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit
entitled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724).
The Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Oceanside"), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant
Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) ("Bausch Health US"), and Bausch
Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International) ("Bausch Health Americas") (for the purposes of this
subsection, collectively, the "Company"), are defendants in
multidistrict antitrust litigation ("MDL") entitled In re: Generic
Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL
2724, 16-MD-2724).
The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals.
The initial lawsuit to which the Company was added as a defendant
in June 2018 was filed by a putative class of direct purchaser
plaintiffs. In December 2018, certain direct purchaser plaintiffs
that had opted out of this putative class filed an amended
complaint in the MDL that added the Company, alleging similar
claims as the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ putative class action
complaint.
In February 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
individual claims brought against it and that motion remains
pending. In October 2019, an end payer plaintiff that had opted out
of the putative end payer class filed a complaint against the
Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging similar
claims.
In December 2019, end payer opt-out complaints also were filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in
the Northern District of California. In December 2019, separate
putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by end payer and indirect
reseller plaintiffs.
In February 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by
direct purchaser plaintiffs. In June 2020, an opt-out complaint was
filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Also in June 2020, State Attorneys General filed a Complaint
against the Company in the District of Connecticut.
In July 2020, an opt-out complaint was filed against the Company in
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The cases have been or will
be consolidated into the MDL.
There are also additional, separate complaints by other plaintiffs
which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the
Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant.
In July 2019, 87 health plans commenced an action in the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other
defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no
complaint has been filed and the case has been put in deferred
status.
In May 2020, seven health plans commenced an additional action in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the
Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict
litigation, but no complaint has been filed.
The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend
itself vigorously.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BAUSCH HEALTH: Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Bausch Health 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 company continues to defend a
consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Glumetza Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA.
Between August 2019 and July 2020, seven (7) putative antitrust
class actions and four (4) non-class complaints were filed in the
Northern District of California against the Company, Salix
Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus,
Inc. (among other defendants) (the "California Actions").
In February 2020, an eighth putative class action was filed in the
Southern District of Florida; this action was transferred to the
Northern District of California. Three (3) of the class actions
were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct
purchasers.
The purported classes of direct purchasers filed a consolidated
amended complaint on November 25, 2019. The consolidated amended
class action complaint filed by end payer purchasers and the two
(2) additional class actions filed by end payer purchasers have all
been voluntarily dismissed.
Three (3) of the non-class complaints were filed by direct
purchasers. These actions have been consolidated and coordinated in
In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA.
A fourth non-class complaint was filed in July 2020 and asserts
claims based on both direct and indirect purchases.
Both the class and non-class plaintiffs seek damages under federal
antitrust laws for claims based on direct purchases. The plaintiff
in the July 2020 complaint also seeks damages and equitable relief
under various state laws for claims based on indirect purchases.
The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation
regarding Glumetza(R) delayed generic entry in exchange for an
agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza(R) or
grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints allege
that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for
Glumetza(R) and its generic equivalent both prior to and after
generic entry. On April 29, 2020, the purported class of direct
purchasers filed their motion for class certification.
The Company filed an opposition on May 27, 2020, and the purported
class of direct purchasers replied on June 24, 2020. A hearing on
the motion is scheduled for August 6, 2020.
The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the
claims against them and intend to vigorously defend these matters.
Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a
range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC)
products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health,
gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through
four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho
Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly
known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed
its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch
Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in
Laval, Canada.
BEYOND MEAT: Bid to Dismiss Tran Putative Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat, 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 putative
securities class action suit initiated by Larry Tran, is pending.
On January 30, 2020, Larry Tran, a purported shareholder of Beyond
Meat, filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
against Beyond Meat and two of the Company's executive officers,
the Company's President and CEO, Ethan Brown, and the Company's
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, Mark Nelson.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and is premised on allegedly false or misleading
statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material facts, related
to the Company's public disclosures regarding the Company's ongoing
litigation with Don Lee Farms during the proposed class period of
May 2, 2019 to January 27, 2020.
The Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on May 18,
2020, and a First Amended Complaint was filed on July 1, 2020.
The First Amended Complaint names the same defendants, proposes the
same class period, and similarly asserts claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act premised on allegedly false or
misleading statements, and alleged non-disclosure of material
facts, related to the Company's public disclosures regarding the
Company's ongoing litigation with Don Lee Farms.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants
on July 31, 2020. The motion to dismiss briefing will be completed
by mid-September 2020.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend all claims asserted.
Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest
growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio
of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El
Segundo, California.
BEYOND MEAT: Massaro Drops Class Suit Over Spam Texts
-----------------------------------------------------
Beyond Meat, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2020, that Nazrin Massaro has voluntarily dismissed her
claims against Beyond Meat without prejudice.
On March 18, 2020, Nazrin Massaro filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Beyond Meat and People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA").
The lawsuit asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and alleges that PETA sent unsolicited text message
advertisements promoting the Company's products to the putative
class members in violation of consumers' privacy rights.
The lawsuit further alleges that PETA and Beyond Meat arranged for
PETA to market Beyond Meat's products in exchange for monetary
contributions from Beyond Meat. The plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief and damages on behalf of herself and the putative class
members.
On May 29, 2020, Beyond Meat moved to dismiss or in the alternative
stay this lawsuit, and on June 8, 2020, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed her claims against Beyond Meat without prejudice.
The Company believes the claims asserted in this lawsuit are
without merit.
Beyond Meat, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is one of the fastest
growing food companies in the United States, offering a portfolio
of revolutionary plant-based meats. The company is based in El
Segundo, California.
BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on
behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of
Blink Charging Co. ("Blink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK)
between March 6, 2020 to August 19, 2020, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
If you purchased Blink securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Blink Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414
or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) many of Blink's charging stations are damaged, neglected,
non-functional, inaccessible, nor non-accessible; (ii) Blink's
purported partnerships and expansions with other companies were
overstated; (iii) the purported growth of the Company's network has
been overstated; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research published a report
titled: "Blink Charging Co. (BLNK): You Won't Miss It." In the
report Culper estimated that the Company's functional public
charging station network consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere
15% of this claim."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell from its August 18,
2020 close of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 close of
$7.94, representing a two day drop of $2.29, or approximately
22.4%.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Blink securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/blinkchargingco-blnk-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-295/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP.
The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Tel No: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
BLINK CHARGING: RM LAW Announces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
RM LAW, P.C. announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased Blink Charging
Co. ("Blink Charging" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK) securities
during the period from March 6, 2020 through August 19, 2020
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Blink Charging shareholders may, no later than October 23, 2020,
move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If
you purchased shares of Blink Charging and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign
up online, click here.
On August 19, 2020, analyst Culper Research issued a report on
Blink Charging, contending that "the Company has vastly exaggerated
the size of its EV charging network in order to siphon money from
the pockets of investors to insiders. Blink claims that 'EV drivers
can easily charge at any of its 15,000 charging stations' but we
estimate the Company's functional public charging station network
consists of just 2,192 stations, a mere 15% of this claim." Culper
continued that its "investigators confirmed what Blink's financials
already suggest: almost no one uses Blink's charging stations, many
of which are in utterly decrepit condition." On this news, the
price of Blink Charging shares fell precipitously over the
following trading days.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
23, 2020, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that
the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other
counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action.
For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C.
(Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by
email at rm@maniskas.com or click here. For more information
about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW,
P.C. please visit our website by clicking here.
RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW,
P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and
institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal
courts nationwide.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel No: 484-324-6800
844-291-9299
E-mail: rm@maniskas.com [GN]
BRASKEM S.A.: Pomerantz LLP Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAK) and
certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and indexed
under 20-cv-11366, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
Braskem securities between May 6, 2016, and July 8, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Braskem securities during
the Class Period, you have until October 26, 2020, to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Braskem is headquartered in Camaçari, Bahia. The Company is
purportedly the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the
Americas, based on the annual production capacity of the Company's
twenty-nine plants in Brazil, six plants in the U.S., two plants in
Germany, and four plants in Mexico, as of December 31, 2019. The
Company's segments include, among others, its Vinyls Unit, which
involved salt mining operations in Alagoas, Brazil.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Braskem's salt mining
operations were unsafe and presented a significant danger to
surrounding areas, including nearly two thousand properties; (ii)
the foregoing foreseeably increased the risk that Braskem would be
subjected to remedial liabilities, including, but not limited to,
increased governmental and/or regulatory oversight or enforcement,
significant monetary and reputational damage, and/or the permanent
closure of one or more of its salt mining operations; (iii)
accordingly, earnings generated from Braskem's salt mining
operations were unsustainable; (iv) Braskem downplayed the true
scope and severity of the Company's liability with respect to its
salt mining operations; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On April 2, 2019, media sources and, later, Braskem, disclosed that
the Company had been sued by local authorities in connection with a
geological event it had purportedly caused in the state of Alagoas,
Brazil. Specifically, Braskem disclosed, in relevant part, that
the Company "ha[d] become aware, through the media, of a lawsuit
filed against it by the Public Prosecutor's Office and the Public
Defender's Office, both of the State of Alagoas." The Company
disclosed that the lawsuits were "requesting the freezing of
amounts and assets in a total of approximately R$6.7 billion [i.e.,
6.7 billion reais] to guarantee any potential damages owed to the
general public affected by the geological phenomenon which occurred
in districts near the rock salt extraction area in Maceio."
On this news, Braskem's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price
fell $1.60 per share over two trading days, or 5.98%, to close at
$25.14 per share on April 3, 2020.
Then, on January 3, 2020, Braskem disclosed that it had executed an
agreement related to the aforementioned geological event that
subjected the Company to further liabilities. Specifically, the
Company disclosed that on January 3, 2020, it had executed an
agreement with the Alagoas State Public Defender's Office ("DPE"),
the Federal Prosecution Office ("MPF"), the Alagoas State
Prosecution Office ("MPE"), and the Federal Public Defender's
Office ("DPU") "to support the relocation and indemnification of
residents of the areas at risk located in the districts of Mutange,
Bom Parto, Pinheiro and Bebedouro of Maceio, Alagoas, as
established in the agreement, which will be submitted to judicial
ratification." Among other conditions, the Company advised that
preliminarily estimates for the relocation established in the
agreement involve approximately 17,000 people, with estimates to be
recognized as provisions at approximately R$1.7 billion for the
implementation of the relocation, and R$1 billion to close the
Company's salt wells.
Finally, on July 9, 2020, during pre-market hours, Braskem
disclosed that authorities in northeastern Brazil had advised the
Company that the geological damage from its salt mining operations
was more widespread than initial estimates. Specifically, among
other things, 1,918 properties needed to be evacuated because of
the geological event associated with Braskem's mining operations,
and Braskem estimated that moving the residents would cost the
Company an additional R$850 million in possible payments to those
residents, with another additional R$750 million in expenses to
"definitively" shut down Braskem's salt mining operations.
On this news, Braskem's ADS price fell $0.59 per share, or 6.20%,
to close at $8.93 per share on July 9, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct.
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN]
C.R. BARD: Williams Products Liability Suit Moved to S.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Williams v. C.R. Bard Inc., et al., Case No.
3:20-cv-02697, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Georgia assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-00125-JRH-BKE to the proceeding.
The case arises from the alleged manufacturing and selling of
defective Bard Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) Filters by Defendants C.R.
Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. in violations of
state consumer fraud and unfair deceptive trade practices in the
United States.
C.R. Bard, Inc., is a medical device manufacturer with its
principal place of business located in New Jersey. Bard Peripheral
Vascular, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary corporation of C.R.
Bard, Inc., with its principal place of business located at 1625
West Third Street, in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Martin Przybysz, Esq.
FEARS NACHAWATI LAW FIRM
5473 Bair Rd.
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-0711
Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
- and –
Darren McDowell, Esq.
SIMON EDDINS & GREENSTONE LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 610
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (214) 276-7680
- and –
Steven Scott Schulte, Esq.
FEARS NACHAWATI PLLC
5473 Blair Road
Dallas, TX 75231
Telephone: (214) 890-0711
Facsimile: (214) 890-0712
CABOT OIL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Cabot
Oil & Gas Corporation. Investors have until the deadline 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 this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
CABOT OIL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of October 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights
law firm, on Aug. 17 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased Cabot Oil & Gas
Corporation ("Cabot Oil" or "the Company") (NYSE: COG) securities
between October 23, 2015, and June 12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Cabot Oil investors have until October 13, 2020 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
If you suffered a loss on your Cabot Oil 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/cabot-oil-gas-corporation/. 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 July 26, 2019, the Company disclosed that it had received two
proposed Consent Order and Agreements related to two Notices of
Violation it had received from the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection in 2017 for failure to prevent the
migration of gas into fresh groundwater sources in the area
surrounding Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.63, or over 12%, to
close at $19.16 per share on July 26, 2019.
On June 15, 2020, following a grand jury investigation, the
Pennsylvania attorney general's office charged Cabot Oil with 15
criminal counts due to its failure to fix faulty gas wells, which
polluted Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas
migration.
On this news, Cabot Oil's stock price fell $0.67 per share, or
3.34%, to close at $19.40 per share on June 15, 2020.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that 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.
If you purchased Cabot Oil securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than October 13, 2020 to ask the Court
to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles
Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
CABOT OIL: Kahn Swick Reminds of October 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
CARE ABOVE: Fails to Pay Minimum and Overtime Wages, Bailey Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NUKOL BAILEY and MARK DANIELS, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CARE ABOVE ALL CARE, INC. and
LEANNA GODLEY, Case No. 4:20-cv-01058-KGB (E.D. Ark., Sept. 1,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum
Wage Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs minimum and overtime wages. Both Plaintiffs regularly
worked more than 40 hours per week, including off the clock works,
and regularly reported all of their time to the Defendants.
However, the Defendants refused to compensate them at one and one
half times their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40
in a single workweek. Additionally, the Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants failed to reimburse them for gas, mileage and automobile
expenses they incurred.
The Plaintiffs were classified by the Defendants as an hourly paid
employees and non-exempt from the overtime FLSA requirements. Mr.
Bailey began working with the Defendants from 2018 until July 2020,
whereas Mr. Daniels was from October 2019 until April 2020 to
August 2020. Both have worked as Caregivers and then promoted to
Lead Direct Supervisors.
Care Above All Care, Inc., provides in-home, non-medical services
to individuals needing assistance with activities of daily living
and personal services. Leanna Godley is the owner, principal,
officer and/or director.[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
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
Email: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
CARRIZO OIL: Hearing Today on Conditional Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DON CHISUM, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARRIZO OIL & GAS,
INC., CALLON PETROLEUM COMPANY, and CALLON PETROLEUM OPERATING
COMPANY, Case No. 4:20-cv-00051-DC-DF (W.D. Tex.), the Hon Judge
David b. Fannin entered an order directing the Parties to appear
via Zoom for a hearing for motion for conditional certification on
Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. The Court will provide
the parties with information to access the Zoom call at a later
date.
Carrizo Oil & Gas Inc. is a Houston-based energy company actively
engaged in the exploration, development, and production of oil and
gas from resource plays located in the U.S. Callon Petroleum
Operating Company produces oil and natural gas products.
A copy of the Court's Order setting hearing for motion for
conditional certification dated Sept. 2, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZGlDLk at no extra charge.[CC]
CASPER SLEEP: Defends Putative Class Suits in N.Y. Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Casper Sleep 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
putative class action suits related to its initial public offering
(IPO).
Beginning in June 2020, several putative class actions have been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by
certain of the company's shareholders against it, its directors,
certain of its officers, and certain of the underwriters of the
company's initial public offering alleging violation of securities
laws in connection with the initial public offering.
Casper said, "We believe these lawsuits are without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against them."
Casper Sleep Inc. manufactures home furnishing products. The
Company designs, produces, and markets range of mattresses, sheets,
pillows, duvet, and bed frames. Casper Sleep serves customers
worldwide. The company is based in New York, New York.
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Certification of Collective FLSA Class Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CATHERINE EALY-SIMON and
KRISTIN WILSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE OPERATIONS, LLC, Case
No. 3:20-cv-00521 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair
Labor Standards Act class;
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail, email
and text message) to:
"all similarly situated current and former Patient Service
Representatives and similar job titles who work or have
worked for Change Healthcare Operations, LLC at any of its
call center facilities at any time during the three years
preceding the filing of the Complaint through judgment";
and
3. requiring the Defendant to identify all putative FLSA
Collective members by providing a list of their names,
last known addresses, dates and location of employment,
phone numbers, and email addresses in electronic and
importable format within ten days of the entry of the
order conditionally certifying this action.
The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendant for
unlawful compensation scheme. The Plaintiffs contend that the
Defendant uses the software programs "SAP Fieldglass" and "Kronos"
to track PSRs' hours worked for purposes of compensation. However,
because Defendant fails to accurately record the PSRs' work time,
Defendant's compensation system fails to properly account for and
compensate the PSRs for all time worked, including their overtime
hours, during each day and during each workweek.
The Plaintiffs were hired by staffing agency Aerotek, Inc. and were
assigned for Change Healthcare as PSR at Defendant's call center
facility in Port St. Lucie, Florida.
Change Healthcare operates an outsourced call center for large
physician groups, hospitals and health systems. In order to provide
call center services to its clients, the Defendant employs hourly
call center employees (Patient Service Representatives or PSRs) to
interact with health plan members, hospitals and insurance
companies through outbound and inbound telephonic contact in order
to review and assess health plan members' eligibility for services,
schedule appointments, resolve billing inquiries, process payments,
confirm insurance acceptance, and collect and manage accounts
receivables.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3knmokD
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class/Collective
Action Members are:
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Rod M. Johnston, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
rjohnston@sommerspc.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com
CHICO'S FAS: Altman Suit v. White House Black Market Still Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the class action suit entitled, Altman v.
White House Black Market, Inc., remains stayed pending the petition
for rehearing in the case, Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. ("WHBM") was named as
a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia ("District Court").
The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law,
willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or
debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts.
The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000
for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as
attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. WHBM denies the
material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is
without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an
order certifying the class.
On April 9, 2018, the District Court, sua sponte, issued an order
granting WHBM's earlier 2016 request to appeal, to the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals ("Eleventh Circuit"), the District Court's
ruling that the plaintiff has standing to maintain the lawsuit.
On April 19, 2018, WHBM filed a petition for review in the Eleventh
Circuit. In the meantime, the District Court stayed all further
proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit.
On July 12, 2018, the plaintiff and WHBM notified the Eleventh
Circuit that the plaintiff and WHBM had reached a class settlement
on all claims and therefore voluntarily dismissed WHBM's appeal to
the Eleventh Circuit. On August 2, 2018, the District Court
reopened the case for purposes of reviewing/approving the proposed
settlement.
On October 22, 2018, the plaintiff filed the settlement papers with
the District Court, along with a motion to stay the District
Court's consideration of the settlement pending the Eleventh
Circuit's final disposition of Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier,
Inc., in which the Eleventh Circuit held, in an opinion issued
October 3, 2018 and supplemented on April 22, 2019, that the
display of the first six and last four digits of a credit or debit
card number on a customer's receipt given at the point of sale
establishes a "concrete injury" sufficient to confer Article III
standing, enabling the customer to maintain a lawsuit. The District
Court granted the motion to stay on November 15, 2018.
A petition for rehearing on the October 2018 opinion was filed in
the Muransky case on October 24, 2018. In October 2019, the
Eleventh Circuit granted rehearing and, on February 25, 2020, heard
oral argument in the en banc appeal.
The Muransky opinion, if not altered on the petition for rehearing,
would bind the District Court in the Altman case and likely
establish that the plaintiff has standing to maintain her lawsuit
against WHBM.
In such event, the stay will be lifted and the proposed settlement
will be reviewed by the District Court. If the Eleventh Circuit
holds that there is not standing in the Muransky case, the parties
have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the Superior Court
for Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed settlement
would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.
However, no assurance can be given that the proposed settlement
will be approved. If the proposed settlement is rejected and the
case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM were to be
unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the ultimate
resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations.
Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.
CHICO'S FAS: Fisher Class Suit Concluded
----------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled,
Fisher v. Chico's FAS, Inc., has been settled by the parties.
In May 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in Fisher v.
Chico's FAS, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint alleges that the Company advertised fictitious prices
and corresponding phantom discounts on its made-for-outlet products
in its Chico's outlets in violation of California's Unfair
Competition Laws, California's False Advertising Laws and the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
On October 22, 2019, the parties attended a mediation.
Thereafter, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case from
federal court on March 5, 2020, and re-filed the complaint in San
Diego County Superior Court. Subsequently, the case was settled by
the parties on June 9, 2020 and a dismissal was filed with the San
Diego County Superior Court on August 10, 2020.
The resolution was not material to our annual consolidated
financial statements.
Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of
women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and
complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White
House Black Market (WHBM), and Soma brand names. The company also
sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS,
Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida.
CHINA XD PLASTIC: Defends Faith Dawn Merger Related Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company 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
several putative class action suits related to its merger with
Faith Dawn Limited and Faith Horizon Inc.
Four lawsuits by purported shareholders have been filed against the
Company and members of the Company's Board of Directors in
connection with the proposed transaction contemplated by an
agreement and plan of merger, dated June 15, 2020, by and among,
the Company, Faith Dawn Limited and Faith Horizon Inc., including
(i) Sears v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-05156-AT, a putative class action filed on or about July 7,
2020, in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, (ii) Post v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00926-UNA, a putative class action filed on
or about July 8, 2020, in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, which also names the buyers as defendants,
(iii) Goebert v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, et al., Case
No. 1:20-cv-05312, filed on or about July 10, 2020, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
(iv) Kothari v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01330-APG-BNW, a putative class action filed on or about
July 17, 2020, in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada.
These complaints challenge the proposed transaction and allege,
among other things, that the Company and the Company's Board of
Directors failed to disclose material information in connection
with the proposed transaction in the preliminary proxy statement in
violation of United States securities laws.
Sears v. China XD Plastics Company Limited, et al. also alleges
that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties
by approving the terms of the proposed transaction and by approving
a materially deficient preliminary proxy statement, and that the
Company aided and abetted the Company’s Board of Directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints seek relief including injunctive relief, rescission
of the merger or rescissory damages, other unspecified damages, and
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.
The Company has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaints, believes they are without merit, and intends to defend
these actions vigorously.
China XD 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 reasonably estimate the outcomes or
range of loss that may result from these actions."
China XD Plastics Company Limited is a specialty chemical company.
The Company is engaged in the research, development, manufacture
and sale of modified plastics for automotive applications in China
and to a lesser extent, in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The Company operates in the modified plastics segment. Through its
subsidiaries, Heilongjiang Xinda Enterprise Group Company Limited
(HLJ Xinda Group) and AL Composites Materials FZE (Dubai
Composites), the Company manufactures and sells polymer composite
materials (including modified plastics), for automotive
applications.
CIBC: Ontario Court Rules Again for Employees in Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits Canada reports that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
has issued additional reasons for judgment in a long-running unpaid
overtime class action lawsuit against Canadian Imperial Bank of
Commerce.
The court has followed up on its summary judgment decision from
March 30, 2020, ruling the bank's current overtime policy is
illegal and unenforceable and that frontline employees who are
members of the class are entitled to monetary damages for CIBC's
failure to pay overtime.
In the most recent decision, released on Aug. 10, Justice Edward
Belobaba said CIBC's overtime policy is illegal and that it
breached employment contracts and the federal labour code. He
concluded class members are entitled to damages arising out the
bank's breaches of the class members' employment contracts.
In rejecting the arguments of CIBC's lawyers, Justice Belobaba
noted CIBC, "in violation of federal law, failed to make and keep
records of the 'hours worked'" and that having "failed to keep the
required records, the defendant bank now says that every aggrieved
class member should be required to prove their case - and if it
takes some 30,000 or more individual trials, so be it."
The court will now give CIBC the time to extract time-stamped
computer data so the plaintiff's expert can complete his aggregate
damages report, which will summarize the compensation to be
awarded. It will then decide whether to make an aggregate damages
award.
"This is another important step towards finally getting the class
members fair and meaningful compensation for their years of unpaid
work performed for the benefit of the bank," said lead class
counsels David O'Connor, Louis Sokolov and Steven Barrett in a
press release.
In a statement, the CIBC said it believes it has effective overtime
policies and practices in place, including a clear overtime policy
that's easily accessible. "We're reviewing this latest decision and
assessing next steps, including whether to add to our existing
appeal." [GN]
CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Gottlieb Files Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Cincinnati
Insurance Company. The case is styled as Dr Richard Gottlieb, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situatedv, Plaintiff v.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, The Cincinnati Casualty Company
and The Cincinnati Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-01266-MRH (W.D. Penn., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to a Diversity-Insurance Contract.
The Cincinnati Insurance Company, operating since 1950, stands
among the nation's top 25 property casualty insurer groups based on
net written premiums. The group markets business, home and auto
insurance products through a select group of independent insurance
agencies in 43 states and the District of Columbia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Carlson Lynch, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue
5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: (412) 322-9243
Email: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
CITY OF LINCOLN: May Face Lawsuit Citing Damages From Mandates
--------------------------------------------------------------
1011now News reports that a class-action lawsuit is expected to be
filed by a group of Lincoln business owners against the city of
Lincoln seeking damages caused by COVID-19 related restrictions and
mandates.
The goal of the lawsuit is to show that restrictions and mandates
put in place by local leaders are not legal, and caused damages to
both employers and employees.
The exact number of businesses that will be a part of the lawsuit
is still unknown. Ferdico said that "more than a dozen" businesses
have already agreed to participate and that number may increase.
Multiple mandates have been put in place by city of Lincoln
officials, including a citywide mask mandate, which has been
extended through Sept. 30. [GN]
CLARK COUNTY, NV: CM Sues Over Neglect for Needs of Special Kids
----------------------------------------------------------------
C.M., individually and as parent to D.M., B.C., individually and as
parent to C.C., L.C., individually and as parent to C.C., D.C.,
individually and as parent to R.C., C.S., individually and as
parent to D.S., L.K., individually and as parent to M.K., M.W.,
individually and as parent to A.W., B.C., individually and as a
parent to A.C., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated v. JESUS JARA, individually and personally and in his
official capacity, DUSTIN MANCL, individually and personally and in
his official capacity, TRUSTEES OF THE CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, individually and personally and in each of their official
capacities, and CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT; and DOES 1 through
100; ROE ENTITIES 11 through 200, inclusive, Case No.
2:20-cv-01562-JCM-BNW (D. Nev., Aug. 21, 2020), arises from the
Defendants' alleged negligent disregard for the needs of children
with special needs.
Dr. Jesus F. Jara is the Superintendent of the Clark County School
District, which serves 320,000 students. Dr. Dustin Mancl has been
selected as region superintendent for Region 1.
The lawsuit seeks equitable and legal relief from alleged (i) the
Defendants' illegal activity and chronic apathy for and abuse of
the stewardship of the education of Nevada's children, (ii)
prevention of public comment during this time of crisis, and (iii)
conspiracy perpetuated by the leadership of Clark County School
District ("CCSD") to squander half of the State of Nevada's
budget.
Plaintiffs C.M., B.C., L.C., D.C., C.S., and L.K. bring this
complaint on behalf of themselves and on behalf of their wards
D.M., C.C., C.C., R.C., D.S., M.K. and on behalf of Nevada children
and young adults eligible for protection under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act and/or the Rehabilitations Act of 1974
through an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") and/or
Modification Plan ("MP") and under the theory of a 'Class of One'
claim.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are required to
implement Students' IEPs in order to meet its legal obligations to
provide Students a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") but
are failing to do so in violation of federal and state laws. The
Defendants and their leadership have publicly declared that CCSD
will not be funding or implementing IEPs with the necessary
one-on-one interaction, even though other students will be
permitted to virtually attend school starting this month, and
despite receiving state and federal funds for IEPs, and clear legal
requirements to do so. As such CCSD has either ignored or
instructed parents with special need children that their only
course of educational relief is to use the same screen based,
distance learning program as other children.
CCSD officials have actively prevented discussion regarding and
implementation of distance-learning opportunities for special needs
students; preventing the benefit of thousands of IEPs in August of
2020, and prohibiting parents from adequately planning for their
child's educational needs, according to the complaint. CCSD
intentionally planned, through its Board of Trustees and
superintendents, to prohibit schools from allowing in-person
education for special needs students in direct violation of IDEA
requirements, and Federal and State law, even though social
distancing objectives set forth by the Governor of Nevada permit
such one-on-one interaction.
The Plaintiffs also assert that the Defendants have discriminated
and continue to discriminate against Students based on their
disability by depriving them of the services and supports deemed
necessary for FAPE in their IEPs and/or MPs while providing
students educational services to students who are ineligible for
Section 504 and/or IDEA protections. As a result of the Defendants'
discriminatory and/or illegal policies, tens of thousands of
Students are being deprived of critical services in violation of
their civil and statutory rights.
Clark County School District is the government agency responsible
for administration of the public education system and Part B of the
IDEA and Section 504, in Clark County Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Robert D. Sweetin, Esq.
DAVISON VAN CLEVE, PC
5795 Rogers Street
Las Vegas, NV 89118
E-mail: rds@dvclaw.com
CLECO CORPORATE: Class Action over 2016 Merger Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2020, that the lawsuit related to Cleco
Corporate Holdings LLC's merger agreement in 2016 remains pending.
In connection with a 2016 merger deal, four actions were filed in
the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, Louisiana and
three actions were filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish, Louisiana.
The petitions in each action generally alleged, among other things,
that the members of Cleco Corporation's Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, conducting an
allegedly inadequate sale process, agreeing to the 2016 Merger at a
price that allegedly undervalued Cleco, and failing to disclose
material information about the 2016 Merger.
The petitions also alleged that Como 1, Cleco Corporation, Merger
Sub, and, in some cases, certain of the investors in Como 1 either
aided and abetted or entered into a civil conspiracy to advance
those supposed breaches of duty. The petitions sought various
remedies, including monetary damages, which includes attorneys'
fees and expenses.
The four actions filed in the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish are captioned as follows:
* Braunstein v. Cleco Corporation, No. 251,383B (filed October
27, 2014),
* Moore v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,417C (filed October 30, 2014),
* Trahan v. Williamson, No. 251,456C (filed November 5, 2014),
and
* L'Herisson v. Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, No.
251,515F (filed November 14, 2014).
In November 2014, the plaintiff in the Braunstein action moved for
a dismissal of the action without prejudice, and that motion was
granted in November 2014. In December 2014, the Court consolidated
the remaining three actions and appointed interim co-lead counsel,
and dismissed the investors in Cleco Partners as defendants, per
agreement of the parties.
Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action
Petition for Damages and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.
The three actions filed in the Civil District Court for Orleans
Parish were captioned as follows:
* Butler v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-10776 (filed November
7, 2014),
* Creative Life Services, Inc. v. Cleco Corporation, No.
2014-11098 (filed November 19, 2014), and
* Cashen v. Cleco Corporation, No. 2014-11236 (filed November
21, 2014).
In December 2014, the directors and Cleco filed declinatory
exceptions in each action on the basis that each action was
improperly brought in Orleans Parish and should either be
transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish
or dismissed.
Also, in December 2014, the plaintiffs in each action jointly filed
a motion to consolidate the three actions pending in Orleans Parish
and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.
In January 2015, the Court in the Creative Life Services case
sustained the defendants' declinatory exceptions and dismissed the
case so that it could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District
Court for Rapides Parish.
In February 2015, the plaintiffs in Butler and Cashen also
consented to the dismissal of their cases from Orleans Parish so
they could be transferred to the Ninth Judicial District Court for
Rapides Parish. By operation of the December 2014 order of the
Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides Parish, the Butler,
Cashen, and Creative Life Services actions were consolidated into
the actions pending in Rapides Parish.
In February 2015, the Ninth Judicial District Court for Rapides
Parish held a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction filed
by plaintiffs in the consolidated action seeking to enjoin the
shareholder vote for approval of the Merger Agreement. The District
Court heard and denied the plaintiffs' motion.
In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Verified Derivative and Class Action Petition. Cleco filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the second amended petition in July
2015.
The LPSC voted to approve the 2016 Merger before the Court could
consider the plaintiffs' peremptory exceptions.
In March 2016 and May 2016, the plaintiffs filed their Third
Consolidated Amended Verified Derivative Petition for Damages and
Preliminary and Permanent Injunction and their Fourth Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Petition, respectively.
The fourth amended petition, which remains the operative petition
and was filed after the 2016 Merger closed, eliminated the request
for preliminary and permanent injunction and also named an
additional executive officer as a defendant. The defendants filed
exceptions seeking dismissal of the fourth amended Petition.
In September 2016, the District Court granted the exceptions of no
cause of action and no right of action and dismissed all claims
asserted by the former shareholders. The plaintiffs appealed the
District Court's ruling to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of
Appeal.
In December 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued an order
reversing and remanding the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. In January 2018, Cleco filed a writ with the Louisiana
Supreme Court seeking review of the Third Circuit Court of
Appeal’s decision. The writ was denied in March 2018 and the
parties are engaged in discovery in the District Court.
In November 2018, Cleco filed renewed exceptions of no cause of
action and res judicata, seeking to dismiss all claims. On December
21, 2018, the court dismissed Cleco Partners and Cleco Holdings as
defendants per the agreement of the parties, leaving as the only
remaining defendants certain former executive officers and
independent directors.
The District Court denied the defendants' exceptions on January 14,
2019. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
class was scheduled for August 26, 2019; however, prior to the
hearing, the parties reached an agreement to certify a limited
class.
On September 7, 2019, the District Court certified a class limited
to shareholders who voted against, abstained from voting, or did
not vote on the 2016 Merger.
Cleco believes that the allegations of the petitions in each action
are without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims set forth in each of the petitions.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC operates as a public utility holding
company primarily in Louisiana. The company, through its
subsidiary, operates as a regulated electric utility, which owns
nine generating units with a total capacity of 3,310 megawatts and
serves approximately 291,000 customers in Louisiana through its
retail business; and supplies wholesale power in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The company was formerly known as Cleco Corporation
and changed its name to Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC in April 2016.
Cleco Corporate Holdings LLC was founded in 1934 and is based in
Pineville, Louisiana.
COMENITY BANK: Batson Sues in C.D. California Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comenity Bank. The
case is captioned as Jennifer Batson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Comenity Bank, Case No.
8:20-cv-01567-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2020).
The consumer credit lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case is assigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton.
Comenity Bank is a major U.S. issuer of credit cards, with a heavy
focus on co-branded retail store credit cards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 535
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Telephone: (323) 940-1700
E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
nick@mblawapc.com
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Second Cir. Appeal Filed in Strauch FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation filed an appeal from the
District Court's Ruling dated July 27, 2020, entered in the lawsuit
entitled Strauch, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No.
14-cv-956, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut (New Haven).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 18,
2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has
granted the Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Motion for Attorney's Fees in
the case captioned JOSEPH STRAUCH, TIMOTHY COLBY, CHARLES TURNER,
and VERNON CARRE individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-956
(JBA) (D. Conn.).
The Court orders the Defendants to pay Class Counsel $7,740,152.51
in attorneys' fees for their work on behalf of the
Plaintiffs--lower than the firms' requested amount.
Class Representatives Joseph Strauch, Timothy Colby, Charles
Turner, and Vernon Carre brought this overtime misclassification
suit on behalf of Associate Professional and Professional System
Administrators (SAs) that had been employed by CSC. Plaintiffs
brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
the state laws of Connecticut, California and North Carolina,
claiming that Defendant CSC unlawfully classified the SAs as
overtime-exempt computer employees.
The appellate case is captioned as Strauch, et al. v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, Case No. 20-2812, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees Joseph Strauch, on behalf of himself and all
those similarly situated; Timothy Colby, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated; Charles Turner, on behalf of himself
and all those similarly situated; and Vernon Carre, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, are represented by:
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: dhutchinson@lchb.com
- and -
Todd F. Jackson, Esq.
FEINBERG, JACKSON, WORTHMAN & WASOW LLP
383 4th Street
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 269-7998
E-mail: todd@feinbergjackson.com
- and -
Karen Baldwin Kravetz, Esq.
SUSMAN, DUFFY & SEGALOFF, P.C.
59 Elm Street, P.O. Box 1684
New Haven, CT 06507
Telephone: (203) 624-9830
E-mail: KKravetz@susmanduffy.com
- and -
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 638-8800
E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
- and -
Darnley D. Stewart, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 3rd Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
E-mail: dstewart@outtengolden.com
Defendant-Appellant Computer Sciences Corporation is represented
by:
David R. Golder, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
90 State House Square
Hartford, CT 06103
Telephone: (860) 522-0404
E-mail: David.Golder@jacksonlewis.com
CONCENTRIX SERVICES: Trainers Suit Granted Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as SIRENA JONES AND JOU MOUA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
CONCENTRIX SERVICES US, INC.; CONCENTRIX CORPORATION; and
CONCENTRIX INSURANCE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, Case No.
6:20-cv-00586-BHH (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks
entered an order:
1. granting conditional certification of a class consisting
of:
"salaried trainers employed by Concentrix Services US,
Inc.; Concentrix Corporation; or Concentrix Insurance
Administration Solutions Corporation within the past three
years who were classified by Defendants as "exempt.";
2. approving the language of the Revised Notice of Right to
Join Lawsuit and Consent to Join form, with the revision
whereby the date range for the putative class starts from
a specific date three years prior to the date of this
Order;
3. granting leave for Plaintiffs to mail (via U.S. Mail) and
email the proposed Revised Notice and Consent to Join to
putative class members;
4. granting a period of 90 days in which to distribute the
Revised Notice and Consent to Join and allow for opt-ins
to file Consents to Join;
5. directing the Plaintiffs not to use text message or any
other notice procedure.
6. denying the proposed text for the electronic transmission
and denying the Plaintiffs' request to submit such
electronic transmission to members of the collective
class;
7. denying leave to send a Follow-Up Notice and Consent; and
8. directing the Defendants to provide relevant contact
information for putative class members within 21 days of
the Court's Order granting Conditional Certification.
Concentrix is doing business in telephone call centers industry.
A copy of the Court's Order granting Motion to Certify Class dated
Sept. 1, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3iyHnAa at no extra charge.[CC]
CONNIE HORTON: Court Denies Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as REO BRYANT et al., v. CONNIE
HORTON, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00131-PLM-MV (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Paul L. Maloney entered an order:
1. denying Plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctive
relief; and
2. denying Plaintiffs' motions for class certification.
A copy of the Court's Order Denying Motion to Certify Class dated
Sept. 1, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Zz6nQz at no extra charge.[CC]
CORE & MAIN: Perez Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as ISHMAEL PEREZ, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. CORE &
MAIN LP and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS20143801,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:20-cv-01821 to the proceeding.
The case alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failed to provide required meal and rest periods,
failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to provide accurate
itemized wage statements and maintain payroll records, failed to
timely pay wages during employment, and failed to pay all wages due
upon termination in violations of California Labor Code and for
unfair and unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business and Professions Code.
Core & Main LP is a distributor of water, sewer and fire protection
products, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
Derrick Lam, Esq.
Alexandria M. Witte, Esq.
Nasim Khansari, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-4300
Facsimile: (213) 443-4299
E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com
dlam@littler.com
awitte@littler.com
nkhansari@littler.com
CORKY MESSNER: N.H. College Democrats Run Ads Seeking Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Paula Tracy and Catherine Mclaughlin at InDepthNH.org reports that
New Hampshire College Democrats are placing advertisements in 16
Colorado publications looking for students who they say may have
been defrauded by the Corky Messner Foundation.
This comes after stories in the Washington Post and Denver Post
about the Messner foundation and calls for a charity fraud
investigation in Colorado.
Messner, a prominent Denver lawyer who is running for the
Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from New Hampshire and is
in a primary battle with Brigadier Gen. Don Bolduc, did not
immediately return calls seeking comment. He has owned a home in
New Hampshire for 13 years.
But Mike Biundo, a senior adviser for the Messner campaign, told
the Denver newspaper: "The complaint is a political hoax with no
legal basis or merit."
The winner in the September Republican primary will face U.S.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the incumbent in the November
general election.
According to the Denver Post story, some residents of Colorado were
petitioning the Attorney General and Secretary of State of Colorado
to conduct a charity fraud investigation of the foundation.
At the same time, Messner's foundation is in the news, the New
Hampshire College Democrats are running their ads in the Boulder
Camera and other community publications which state: "Were You
Defrauded by the Messner Foundation? We are looking for victims of
Colorado Corky Messner's scam foundation for a potential class
action."
Hope Daley, spokesman for the New Hampshire College Democrats said:
"Corky Messner exploited the time, energy and stories of low-income
students and took hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors to
prop up his scam scholarship foundation. . . . We want to hear
from the Colorado students who were hurt by Corky's scheme-they
deserve justice."
The Denver Post reported that two former Colorado Supreme Court
justices have asked state investigators to look into the matter.
"In a complaint filed, the former justices joined several other
Coloradans in alleging that Messner of Messner Reeves LLP broke the
law when his charity raised $200,000 at a raffle in 2015 to fund
scholarships for underprivileged high school students but didn't
provide scholarships that year," the report said.
According to the complaint reported in the Denver Post: "The
Messner Foundation and its president, Corky Messner, swindled both
the underprivileged students in Colorado it was promising to help,
as well as all of the people who purchased tickets for its 2015
raffle believing their money was going toward a good cause," the
five-page complaint to two state agencies alleges. [GN]
COUNTRY PREFERRED: Munao Insurance Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as PENNY JO MUNAO, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. COUNTRY PREFERRED INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 20-L-000354, was removed from the Illinois
Circuit Court, Kane County, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-05235 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of its
insurance policy by failing to pay the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated insureds the full costs of mandatory state
transfer and title fees after they suffered total loss of their
vehicles.
Country Preferred Insurance Company is an insurance company located
in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Kelly III, Esq.
Chanda M. Feldkamp, Esq.
KELLY LAW PARTNERS, LLC
501 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1100
Denver, CO 80246
Telephone: (720) 236-1800
E-mail: wkelly@kellylawpartners.com
cfeldkamp@kellylawpartners.com
- and –
Lisa M. Lilly, Esq.
KELLY LAW PARTNERS, LLC
332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 121-L483
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (720) 236-1804
E-mail: lml@kellylawpartners.com
COUSINS FOUR: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages, Najarro-Avalos Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELEAZAR NAJARRO-AVALOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. COUSINS FOUR INC., MILTON STAMATAROS,
VASSILIS VASSILARAS, d/b/a PRINCETONIAN DINER, JOHN DOE ## 1-5 and
JANE DOE ## 1-5, Case No. 3:20-cv-00694 (N.J. Super., Mercer Cty.,
Sept. 3, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their failure
to compensate the Plaintiff and other restaurant employees the
legally-required minimum wages.
The lawsuit is also brought for the Defendants' failure to pay
appropriate overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, and to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and
Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a food preparer or
cook at the Princetonian Diner in Princeton, New Jersey, until the
termination of his employment in 2020.
Cousins Four Inc. is the owner and operator of the Princetonian
Diner, a restaurant located at 3509 Route 1, in Princeton, New
Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger Martindell, Esq.
245 Nassau Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (609) 921-3355
Facsimile: (609) 921-9345
E-mail: martindell.law@gmail.com
CVS PHARMACY: Hyams Appeals Ruling in Chalian Suit to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Intervenors Ryan Hyams and Regine Duhon filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Sevag Chalian,
et al. v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-08979-AB-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 17,
2020, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California adopted the Parties' proposed
class expert discovery and class certification briefing schedule.
On April 15, 2020, the Parties submitted a Joint Status Report
updating the Court on their progress in completing outstanding
discovery, and proposing amended deadlines for discovery and class
certification.
On April 20, 2020, the Court entered an amended scheduling order
setting revised deadlines, including Expert Opening Reports on June
30, 2020, Expert Rebuttal Reports on July 15, 2020, and Close of
Expert Discovery on Aug. 15, 2020. It also entered an Order
Regarding Class Certification Briefing Schedule, setting a class
certification briefing schedule, including Plaintiffs' Class
Certification Motion Filing Deadline on Aug. 27, 2020--after the
close of expert discovery.
Due to the scope of the various claims and issues in the case, the
cost of having expert witnesses analyze each claim/issue, calculate
full class-wide damages in the matter, and prepare comprehensive
reports--all before the Parties brief class certification--is
significant. The Parties agree that ordering expert discovery to
take part in phases will avoid the expenditure of unnecessary
resources in preparing a class-wide damages analysis for issues
that the Plaintiffs may not pursue in their briefing, or that the
Court may not certify to proceed on a class-wide basis or may
otherwise limit in scope during the class certification process.
To that end, after extensive meeting and conferring about the
various discovery issues involved in the matter, the Parties agree
that bifurcating expert discovery into two phases will best serve
the interests of judicial and litigation efficiency. Bifurcated
expert damages discovery will enable the Parties to focus on the
issues required for the various phases of the action, with the
first phase occurring prior to class certification to assess the
evidence for or against certification, and the second phase
occurring after certification to assess damages for any claims that
are certified or that otherwise remain as part of the case
following the Court's class certification decision.
The appellate case is captioned as Sevag Chalian, et al. v. CVS
Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55916, 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 Regine Duhon and Ryan Hyams' opening brief is
due on December 7, 2020;
-- Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS RX Services, Inc.,
Sigfredo Cabrera, Sevag Chalian, Garfield Beach CVS, LLC,
Christine McNeely and Enko Telahun's answering brief is due
on January 7, 2021; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after
service of the answering brief.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees SEVAG CHALIAN, SIGFREDO CABRERA, ENKO TELAHUN,
and CHRISTINE MCNEELY, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, and
all other persons similarly situated, are represented by:
R. Craig Clark, Esq.
CLARK LAW GROUP
3258 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: (619) 239-1321
E-mail: cclark@clarklawyers.com
- and -
Thomas Falvey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 547-5200
E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmail.com
- and -
Armand Raffi Kizirian, Esq.
KIZIRIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
550 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1500
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 221-2800
E-mail: armand@kizirianlaw.com
- and -
Michael Scott Morrison, Esq.
ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
401 Wilshire Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 394-0888
E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com
Defendants-Appellees CVS PHARMACY, INC, a Rhode Island corporation;
CVS RX SERVICES, INC, a New York corporation; and GARFIELD BEACH
CVS, LLC, a California limited liability company, are represented
by:
Tyler Ryan Andrews, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 732-6500
E-mail: andrewst@gtlaw.com
- and -
James N. Boudreau, Esq.
Christiana Signs, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-7833
E-mail: boudreauj@gtlaw.com
signsc@gtlaw.com
Movants-Appellants RYAN HYAMS and REGINE DUHON, Proposed
Intervenors, are represented by:
Catherine J. Coble, Esq.
Beth Anne Gunn, Esq.
GUNN COBLE LLP
101 S. 1st Street, Suite 407
Burbank, CA 91502-1938
Telephone: (818) 900-0695
E-mail: cathy@gunncoble.com
beth@gunncoble.com
DEUTSCHE BANK: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Deutsche Bank
Aktiengesellschaft ("Deutsche Bank" or the "Bank") (NYSE: DB) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired Deutsche Bank securities between November 7,
2017, and July 6, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the
firm's site: www.bgandg.com/db.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Deutsche Bank had failed to remediate
deficiencies related to AML, its disclosure controls, procedures,
and internal control over financial reporting, and its U.S.
operations' troubled condition; (2) as a result, the Bank failed to
properly monitor customers that the Bank itself deemed to be high
risk, including, among others, the convicted sex offender Jeffrey
Epstein ("Epstein") and two correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and
FBME Bank, which were both the subjects of prior scandals involving
financial misconduct; (3) the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Bank's
financial results and reputation; and (4) as a result, the Bank's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On May 13, 2020, media outlets reported that the 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 AML and other control
procedures. Following 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 Epstein and with two
correspondent banks, Danske Estonia and FBME Bank, both of which
were the subjects of prior scandals involving financial misconduct.
Following 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/db or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Deutsche
Bank you have until September 14, 2020 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
DOLLAR TREE: Continues to Defend PPE Class Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action
suit by a current employee alleging that the company failed to
provide an effective illness and injury prevention program in its
California stores and failed to provide personal protective
equipment (PPE).
In June 2020, a current employee filed a class action in California
state court on behalf of herself and other non-exempt store
employees in California alleging that the company failed to provide
an effective illness and injury prevention program in its
California stores and failed to provide personal protective
equipment (PPE) to its store employees thereby engaging in unfair
business practices and creating a public nuisance.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Deal Reached in Distribution Center Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that the company had reached an agreement in
principle to settle the class action suit initiated by a
distribution center employee in California.
In April 2015, a distribution center employee filed a class action
in California state court with allegations concerning wages, meal
and rest breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely
termination pay.
Dollar Tree said, "We have reached an agreement and received
preliminary approval from the court."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Family Dollar Still Facing Suit over Zantac
--------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that its Family Dollar unit continues to defend a
state and federal class action related to Zantac.
In October 2019, a state and federal class action was filed in New
York alleging that the company sold Zantac containing
N-Nitrosodimethylamine, which is classified by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) as a probable carcinogen.
The suit alleges breach of warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and
violation of New York's General Business Law.
Dollar Tree said, "We believe we are fully indemnified by our
supplier."
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
DOLLAR TREE: Suits Against Family Dollar Over ADA Breach Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 1, 2020, that Family Dollar continues to defend purported
nationwide and state class action suits related to its violation
with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), initiated by a law
firm.
Beginning in 2019, a law firm has filed lawsuits around the
country, including purported nationwide and state class actions,
alleging that the company violated the public accommodation
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act or its state
law equivalent, by systemically blocking the aisles with
merchandise.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Dollar Tree, Inc. operates discount variety retail stores. It
operates through two segments, Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. The
company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Chesapeake,
Virginia.
EASTMAN KODAK: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Oct. 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Eastman
Kodak Company. Investors have until the deadline 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.
Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: KODK)
Class Period: July 27, 2020 – August 7, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 13, 2020
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James
Continenza, and several other Company insiders millions of dollars'
worth of stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly
disclosing that it had received the $765 million loan, which
Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase
in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in
possession of this material non-public information, Continenza and
other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's
shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that
they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.
To be a member of this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-914-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action Over Ultimate Team Loot Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Video Games Chronicle reports that a class action lawsuit has been
brought against Electronic Arts in California, claiming that the
publisher's Ultimate Team modes breach the state's gambling laws.
EA's Ultimate Team packs used in the FIFA and Madden games
constitute gambling in violation of California law, plaintiff Kevin
Ramirez alleges in court documents seen by VGC. The plaintiff is
demanding a jury trial and damages of $5 million.
The case was brought by Ramirez on behalf of a proposed class of
more than 100 others, on August 13 in the Northern District of
California. The same law firm also filed a class action against
Apple in June for its use of loot boxes in California.
It alleges that EA "relies on creating addictive behaviors in
consumers to generate huge revenues" and that EA's Ultimate Team
Packs "are predatory and designed to entice gamers to gamble."
"EA's Ultimate Team Packs are Loot Boxes. Buying the Packs are
nothing more than a gambling bet," the case claims. "Purchased
using real money, the Ultimate Team Packs are simply wagers on
completely randomized chances within the game to win valuable
professional players and other items for the EA gamer's virtual
sports team."
Ramirez claims he has been induced to spend money to purchase
Ultimate Team packs and estimates he has spent in excess of $600 in
FIFA and Madden since 2011.
California's definition of gambling defines an illegal gambling
device as "a machine, aperture, or device; something of value is
given to play; and the player may receive something of value by
element of chance."
"None of these elements can be in dispute," reads the filing. "A
gamer uses his console, computer, smartphone or tablet with the EA
sports franchise game on it (#1); the gamer pays real-world
currency for the opportunity to open an Ultimate Team Pack (#2);
and the Ultimate Team Pack is a randomized chance to win something
valuable in-game."
There is currently no legal consensus in the US on whether loot
boxes constitute gambling.
However, the case references places where the mechanic has been
classed as gambling, such as in Belgium where games such as FIFA
were blocked from selling loot boxes.
It also references a September 2019 report from the UK's Digital,
Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which advised the UK government
to regulate loot boxes under gambling law and ban them from sale to
children.
In January, UK trade body Ukie launched the 'Get Smart About
P.L.A.Y. Campaign', which is designed to help parents promote
healthy gaming using console safety features.
And in April the Pan European Game Information rating system
introduced additional information on physical game packaging and on
digital storefronts for titles which include in-game purchases that
include random items like loot boxes or card packs.
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo announced last year that they were
planning to introduce new policies that require games made for
their consoles to disclose loot box odds beginning in 2020. [GN]
EMBLEMHEALTH INC: Abernethy et al. Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ABERNETHY, FRED
BLICKMAN, DOMINIC D'ADAMO, MARILYN DEQUATRO, THOMAS DWYER, MICHAEL
FULLWOOD, PHILIP GANDOLFO, MICHAEL HERBERT, STEVEN KESSLER, DENNIS
LIOTTA, DANIEL MCGOWAN, RONALD PLATT, ARAN RON, VINCENT
SCICCHITANO, JOHN STEBER, LESLIE STRASSBERG, PEDRO VILLALBA,
ANTHONY WATSON and MARC WOLFERT, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly-situated individuals, v. EMBLEMHEALTH, INC.,
EMBLEMHEALTH SERVICES COMPANY, LLC and CONNECTICARE, INC., Case No.
1:17-cv-07814-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court for an
order granting their motion for class certification and designation
of their counsel as Class Counsel against the Defendants.
The Plaintiffs seek to recover damages stemming from the
Defendants' breach of the explicit promises contained in their
employment and/or separation agreements; specifically promising
them that they and their eligible dependents would receive health
benefits throughout their retirement at the same level of the
health benefits that EmblemHealth provided to its active officers.
EmblemHealth provides health care insurance and benefit plans.
A copy of Abernethy, et al. Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mpRM3N
at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Contract Class are:
Douglas H. Wigdor, Esq.
Parisis G. Filippatos, Esq
Renan F. Varghese, Esq
Bryan L. Arbeit, Esq
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
pfillipatos@wigdorlaw.com
rvarghese@wigdorlaw.com
barbeit@wigdorlaw.com
ENDO INT'L: Continues to Defend Opioid-Related Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International 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 and its subsidiaries continue to
defend opioid-related class action suits.
Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as other governmental
persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada
have filed suit against the company and/or certain of its
subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.
(PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and in Canada, Paladin, as well as various
other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and/or others,
asserting claims relating to defendants’ alleged sales, marketing
and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid
medications, including certain of our products.
As of July 30, 2020, filed cases in the U.S. of which the company
was aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases
filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,840 cases filed by
counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other
government-related persons or entities; approximately 290 cases
filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare
funds or other third-party payers and approximately 165 cases filed
by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative
class actions.
The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on
behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and
territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid
healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids,
an action filed by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta on behalf of
a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada,
as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of
Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid
medications.
Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts.
The cases are at various stages in the litigation process.
The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties
(Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go
forward after most defendants settled.
EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the
Track One plaintiffs in September 2019 which provided for payments
totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT(R) and/or
ADRENALIN(R).
Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be
entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive
resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement
agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was
not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of
our subsidiaries.
The earliest trial is currently scheduled for September 2020;
however, trials may occur earlier or later as timing remains
uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. Most
cases remain at the pleading and/or discovery stage.
The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including
but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public
nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices,
racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws
and/or common law claims for public nuisance,
fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust
enrichment.
The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or
omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription
opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps
to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and
diversion. Plaintiffs have generally sought various remedies
including, without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive
relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution,
disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys' fees, costs
and/or other relief.
Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."
Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.
ENDO INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Generic Drug Pricing Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International plc 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
involving alleged price-fixing of generic drugs currently pending
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs, state attorneys
general and other governmental entities have filed cases against
the company subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) and/or, in
some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA
Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), as well as other
pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other
corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and
other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic
pharmaceutical products.
These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf
of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers,
as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated
and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
There is also a proposed class action filed in the Federal Court of
Canada on behalf of a proposed class of Canadian purchasers.
The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert
claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer
protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages,
treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and
other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under
these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all
alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and
severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy,
not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by
a particular defendant.
The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive
orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and
discovery is ongoing.
Endo said, "We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing
matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best
interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the
foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the
outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any
losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability
accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows."
Endo International plc, a specialty pharmaceutical company,
manufactures and sells generic and branded pharmaceuticals in the
United States, Canada, and internationally. The company operates
through three segments: U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Branded
Pharmaceuticals, and International Pharmaceuticals. Endo
International plc was founded in 1920 and is headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland.
EXXON MOBIL: Faces Centi TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Text Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
DOMINICK CENTI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Case
No. 0:20-cv-61779-RAR (S.D. Fla., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sent him telemarketing
text messages to his cellular telephone number ending in 2460 on
July 28, 2020, July 29, 2020, August 4, 2020, August 12, 2020, and
August 27, 2020. Despite repeated use of the Defendant's preferred
opt-out language, the Plaintiff still receive promotional text
messages from the Defendant.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's unsolicited text
messages have caused him actual harm.
Exxon Mobil Corporation is a multinational oil and gas
corporation.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Garrett O. Berg, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: 305-479-2299
Emails: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
gberg@shamisgentile.com
- and –
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
Aaron Alzadeh, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: 305-975-3320
Emails: scott@edelsberglaw.com
aaron@edelsberglaw.com
FASTLY INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on behalf of investors that purchased Fastly, Inc. (:
FSLY) common stock between May 6, 2020 and August 5, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). Investors have until October 26, 2020 to apply to
the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Fastly is the provider of an edge cloud platform. Fastly's edge
cloud platform purportedly enables "customers to create great
digital experiences quickly, securely, and reliably by processing,
serving, and securing [its] customers' applications as close to
their end-users as possible."
On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020
earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed
that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly
popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2
2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for
the six months ended June 30, 2020.
This news shocked the market, as TikTok had been under heavy
scrutiny by U.S. officials and others since at least late 2019 due
to fears that the data it collects from its users could be accessed
by the Chinese government. Indeed, on July 31, 2020, President
Trump announced a plan to ban TikTok in the U.S. over national
security concerns. As Fastly's Chief Executive Officer admitted on
the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any ban of the TikTok app by the US
would create uncertainty around our ability to support this
customer[,]" and "the loss of this customer's traffic would have an
impact on our business."
On this news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately
17.7% from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to
close at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.
Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.
The complaint, filed on August 27, 2020, alleges that during the
Class Period defendants knowingly and/or recklessly made false
and/or misleading statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
Fastly's largest customer was ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which
was known to have serious security risks and was under intense
scrutiny by U.S. officials; (2) that there was a material risk that
Fastly's business would be adversely impacted should any adverse
actions be taken against ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S.
government; and (3) that, as a result, defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Fastly common stock during the Class Period and
suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information,
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Melissa Fortunato, Marion
Passmore or Brandon Walker by email at investigations@bespc.com,
telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & 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. [GN]
FASTLY INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on August 27, 2020, a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against Fastly, Inc. (NYSE:
FSLY). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material
or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 6, 2020 through August 5, 2020.
To learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-fastly-inc/.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Fastly, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and
are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may
move the Court no later than October 26, 2020 to serve as a lead
plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you
must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email: rkh@federmanlaw.com [GN]
FASTLY INC: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Fastly, Inc.
("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) securities during the
period from May 6, 2020 through August 5, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until October 26, 2020 to apply to the
Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On August 5, 2020, Fastly held its second quarter ("Q2") 2020
earnings conference call. During the call, defendants disclosed
that ByteDance, the Chinese company that operates the wildly
popular mobile app TikTok, was Fastly's largest customer in Q2
2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for
the six months ended June 30, 2020. This news shocked the market,
as TikTok had been under heavy scrutiny by U.S. officials and
others since at least late 2019 due to fears that the data it
collects from its users could be accessed by the Chinese
government. On July 31, 2020, President Trump announced a plan to
ban TikTok in the U.S. over national security concerns. As Fastly's
Chief Executive Officer admitted on the Q2 2020 earnings call, "any
ban of the TikTok app by the US would create uncertainty around our
ability to support this customer[,]" and "the loss of this
customer's traffic would have an impact on our business." On this
news, Fastly's share price fell $19.28, or approximately 17.7%,
from the previous trading day's closing price of $108.92, to close
at $89.64 on August 6, 2020.
Fastly's share price continued to decline on August 6, 2020, when
President Trump issued an executive order effectively banning
TikTok, dropping another $10.31 per share from the closing price on
August 6, 2020, or approximately 11.5%, to close at $79.33 on
August 7, 2020.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knowingly and/or recklessly made false and/or misleading statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Fastly's largest customer was
ByteDance, operator of TikTok, which was known to have serious
security risks and was under intense scrutiny by U.S. officials;
(2) that there was a material risk that Fastly's business would be
adversely impacted should any adverse actions be taken against
ByteDance or TikTok by the U.S. government; and (3) that, as a
result, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you acquired Fastly securities, have information, or would like
to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of
Kirby McInerney at 212-371-6600, by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out a contact form, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, and whistleblower
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney's website: www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Chapman Sues Over 34% Drop in Share Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JIM CHAPMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS INC., ROSTISLAV RAYKOV, and
ROBERT ANDRADE, Case No. 1:20-CV-812 (M.D.N.C., Sept. 3, 2020),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by issuing false and misleading statements resulting to the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Fennec securities between February
11, 2020, and August 10, 2020, inclusive.
According to the complaint, Fennec disclosed that it had received a
Complete Response Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
regarding the Company's New Drug Application for PEDMARK on August
11, 2020, before the market opened. The letter notes that "after
recent completion of a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing
facility of [Fennec's] drug product manufacturer, the FDA
identified deficiencies resulting in a Form 483, which is a list of
conditions or practices that are required to be resolved prior to
the approval of PEDMARK."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or 34%, to
close at $6.66 per share on August 11, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
According to the complaint, the 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 manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the
Company's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good
manufacturing practices; (2) that, as a result, regulatory approval
for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dhamian A. Blue, Esq.
Daniel T. Blue, III, Esq.
BLUE LLP
205 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 833-1931
Facsimile: (919) 833-809
E-mail: dab@bluellp.com
dtb3@bluellp.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
E-mail: info@frankcruzlaw.com
FIRST SOLAR: George Huerta Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as George Huerta, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and as a
representative plaintiff, v. First Solar, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; California Flats Solar, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; CA Flats Solar 130, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; CA Flats Solar 150, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; Cal Flats Solar CEI, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; Cal Flats Solar Holdco, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc.; Milco National
Constructors, Inc.; California Compaction Corporation; and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 5:18-cv-06761-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
will move the Court on January 21, 2021 for an order:
1. certifying a class;
2. finding that the Plaintiff is an adequate representative and
certifying him as the Class representative.
3. finding that his counsel and their respective firms, Peter
R. Dion-Kindem of Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. and Lonnie C.
Blanchard III of The Blanchard Law Group, APC, are
adequate class counsel and certifying them as class
counsel.
First Solar is an American manufacturer of solar panels, and a
provider of utility-scale PV power plants and supporting services
that include finance, construction, maintenance and end-of-life
panel recycling.
A copy of Mr. Huerta's Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hrFc04 at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (818) 883-4900
E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com
- and -
Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
5211 East Washington Blvd. No. 2262
Commerce, CA 90040
Telephone: (213) 599-8255
Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com
FIRSTENERGY CORP: Kahn Swick Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadlines in the following securities class action
lawsuits:
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/otc-bayry/
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-fe/
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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-cog/
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients --
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors -- in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.
Contact:
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
1-877-515-1850
1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200
New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN]
FRANKLIN MINT LLC: Rodriguez Asserts Breach of ADA
--------------------------------------------------
The Franklin Mint LLC is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Angel Rodriguez, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. The Franklin Mint
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03964 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020).
The Franklin Mint was a private mint founded by Joseph Segel in
1964 in Wawa, Pennsylvania. The building is in Middletown Township.
The brand name was previously owned by Sequential Brands Group
headquartered in New York City, New York. It is currently owned by
Retail Ecommerce Ventures.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
FRICTIONLESS WORLD: Sale of Shelving System to Conesco Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael E. Romero of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Colorado authorized Frictionless World, LLC's sale of
its warehouse shelving system outside the ordinary course of
business to Conesco Storage Systems, Inc.
The sale is free and clear of any and all liens, claims and
encumbrances of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown.
The Court approved the letter agreement dated May 2, 2020 between
FW and Conesco for the sale and of the Shelving System to Conesco.
FW may deliver to Conesco the Shelving System pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the Agreement.
Any person(s) having notice or knowledge of the Order are enjoined,
prohibited and restrained from possession or using the Shelving
System or from interfering with the closing or with FW's or
Conesco's rights under the Agreement or the within order and/or
from commencing, continuing or otherwise pursuing or enforcing any
remedy, claim, cause of action, lien or encumbrance against Conesco
related thereto.
About Frictionless World
Frictionless World, LLC -- https://www.frictionlessworld.com/ --
provides professional grade outdoor power equipment, replacement
parts for tractors, hitches and agricultural implements, gate and
fence equipment, lithium ion powered tools, and ice fishing
equipment. It offers brands such as Dirty Hand Tools, RanchEx,
Redback, Trophy Strike and Vinsetta Tools.
Frictionless World sought Chapter 11 protection (Banks. D. Col.
Case No. 19-18459) on Sept. 30, 2019. The Hon. Michael E. Romero
is the case judge. In the petition signed by CEO Daniel Banjo, the
Debtor disclosed total assets of $14,600,503 and total liabilities
of $17,364,542.
The Debtor tapped Wadsworth Garber Warner Conrardy P.C. as
bankruptcy counsel; Thomas P. Howard, LLC as special counsel; r2
Advisors, LLC as financial advisor; and Three Twenty-One Capital
Partners, LLC as investment banker.
The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed creditors to serve on the
official committee of unsecured creditors on Nov. 20, 2019. JW
Infinity Consulting LLC, is the financial advisor to the Committee.
GENIUS BRANDS: Levi & Korsinsky Alerts of Class Action Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Aug. 30 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced on behalf of shareholders of Genius
Brands International 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.
Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS)
GNUS Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 17, 2020 -
July 5, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: October 19, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/genius-brands-international-inc-information-request-form?prid=8922&wire=1
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.
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
https://www.zlk.com [GN]
GENIUS BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of October 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of the Genius Brands International,
Inc. (NASDAQ: GNUS) between March 17, 2020 and July 5, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important October 19, 2020
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Genius Brands investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the Genius Brands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1929.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 regarding: (1) the Kartoon
Channel app; (2) Nickelodeon's claimed broadcast expansion of
Genius's Rainbow Rangers cartoon; and (3) the Company's growth
potential and overall prospects as a company. 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-1929.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney
Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com [GN]
GEO GROUP: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Aug. 17 announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against
The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO" or "the Company") (NYSE:GEO) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February
27, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 8, 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. GEO's COVID-19 response procedures were
ineffective. The Company's failure to maintain appropriate response
procedures placed the residents of its halfway houses at risk.
Placing its residents at significant health risk, in turn, made the
Company vulnerable to financial and reputational harm. Based on
this news, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about GEO, 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]
GOLDCO DIRECT: Judson Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
-------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as JODI JUDSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GOLDCO DIRECT, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
2:19-cv-06798-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the
Court on November 2, 2020 for an order granting class
certification, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
"all persons within the United States who (a) received the
same text messages from Goldco that Plaintiff received; (b) sent
using Call Loop; (c) on their cellular telephone numbers; (d) that
were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry more than 30
days before receiving any of the text messages; and (e) who are
identified by Plaintiff’s expert Aaron Woolfson.
The Plaintiff's claim is brought under 47 U.S.C. section
227(b)(1)(a)(iii), which makes it "unlawful" to (1) "make any call"
(2) "using any automatic telephone dialing system" (3) "to any
telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service." For an
autodialed call to a cell phone number that "constitutes
telemarketing," the Telephone Consumer Protection Act requires a
company to obtain the "prior express written consent of the called
party" before making the call to avoid liability. 47 C.F.R.
Goldco sells gold and other precious metals to consumers. To market
its products, Goldco advertises extensively on the internet and by
email by offering consumers the opportunity to receive a free
investment guide. To receive the free investment guide, consumers
must provide their contact information to Goldco on a webform.
Goldco has engaged in this practice since as far back as 2013, and
the web forms it has used have changed over time. However, Goldco
has not always obtained and/or retained the necessary prior express
written consent from the consumers requesting a free investment
guide to later telemarket to them using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or if their phone numbers were registered on the
National Do Not Call Registry, the complaint says.
A copy of Ms. Judson's Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FGWnxGn at no
extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
400 NW 26th Street
Miami, FL 33127
Telephone: (305) 469-5881
E-mail: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Appeal in Commodities-Related Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 plaintiffs in the class action
suit related to alleged violations of antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act by Goldman Sachs International (GSI) have
taken an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals from the
decision granting the defendants' motions to dismiss and for
reconsideration.
Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in
putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and
palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014 and most recently
amended on May 15, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants
violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in
connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for
physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, as well as treble damages in an unspecified
amount.
On March 29, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss and for reconsideration, resulting in the dismissal of all
claims.
On April 27, 2020, plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Alnylam IPO-Related Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in a putative securities class action in New
York relating to Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s US$805 million
November 2017 public offering of common stock is still pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September
12, 2019 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s (Alnylam) $805 million November
2017 public offering of common stock.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Alnylam and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 2,576,000
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $322 million.
On December 20, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint filed on November 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss VRDO-Related Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 defendants' motion to dismiss
the class action suit related to variable rate demand obligations
(VRDOs) is still pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the defendants named in
a putative class action relating to variable rate demand
obligations (VRDOs), filed beginning in February 2019 under
separate complaints and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 31, 2019,
generally asserts claims under federal antitrust law and state
common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among the
defendants to manipulate the market for VRDOs.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble and other damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss on July 30, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix Suit Over Altice USA IPO Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 court dismissed the amended
complaint in the putative class action suit related to Altice USA,
Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017 initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New
York Supreme Court, County of Queens, and the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York beginning in June 2018,
relating to Altice USA, Inc.'s (Altice) $2.15 billion June 2017
initial public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Altice and
certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 12,280,042 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $368 million.
On May 10, 2019, plaintiffs in the district court filed an amended
complaint, and on June 27, 2019, plaintiffs in the state court
action filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On October 14, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in
the district court action.
On June 26, 2020, the court dismissed the amended complaint in the
state court action.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Nix US Treasury Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 defendants' motion to dismiss
the litigation related to the sale of U.S. Treasury securities
remains pending.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the primary dealers
named as defendants in several putative class actions relating to
the market for U.S. Treasury securities, filed beginning in July
2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
GS&Co. is also among the primary dealers named as defendants in a
similar individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on August 25, 2017.
The consolidated class action complaint, filed on December 29,
2017, generally alleges that the defendants violated antitrust laws
in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the
when-issued market and auctions for U.S. Treasury securities and
that certain defendants, including GS&Co., colluded to preclude
trading of U.S. Treasury securities on electronic trading platforms
in order to impede competition in the bidding process.
The individual action alleges a similar conspiracy regarding
manipulation of the when-issued market and auctions, as well as
related futures and options in violation of the Commodity Exchange
Act.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble
damages in an unspecified amount and restitution.
Defendants moved to dismiss on February 23, 2018.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Stay Venator IPO Related Suit in NY Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 defendants' motion to stay the New
York state court action related to the Venator Materials PLC's $522
million August 2017 initial public offering and $534 million
December 2017 secondary equity offering, in favor of the federal
action has been denied.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions in Texas District
Court, Dallas County, New York Supreme Court, New York County, and
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, filed
beginning in February 2019, relating to Venator Materials PLC's
(Venator) $522 million August 2017 initial public offering and $534
million December 2017 secondary equity offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Venator,
certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
shareholders. GS&Co. underwrote 6,351,347 shares of common stock in
the August 2017 initial public offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $127 million and 5,625,768 shares
of common stock in the December 2017 secondary equity offering
representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $127
million.
On January 21, 2020, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed the Texas
District Court and dismissed the claims against the underwriter
defendants, including GS&Co., in the Texas state court action for
lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 18, 2020, defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the federal action.
On July 1, 2020, defendants' motion to stay the New York state
court action in favor of the federal action was denied.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bids to Dismiss Amended Uber IPO Complaint Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 defendants are seeking to dismiss
litigation related to Uber Technologies, Inc.'s (Uber) $8.1 billion
May 2019 initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed
beginning in September 2019 in California Superior Court, County of
San Francisco and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Uber and
certain of its officers and directors. GS&Co. underwrote 35,864,408
shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.6 billion.
On June 17 and June 30, 2020, defendants in the state court action
filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint filed
on February 11, 2020.
On May 5, 2020, defendants in the district court action moved to
dismiss the amended complaint filed on March 3, 2020.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Status Bid Pending in Interest Rate Swap Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 class plaintiff's March 2019
motion for class certification in the Interest Rate Swap Antitrust
Litigation is still pending.
The Company ("Group Inc."), Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co."),
Goldman Sachs Bank USA ("GS Bank USA") and Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P. ("GSFM") are among the defendants named in a putative
antitrust class action relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, filed in November 2015 and consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
The same Goldman Sachs entities also are among the defendants named
in two antitrust actions relating to the trading of interest rate
swaps, commenced in April 2016 and June 2018, respectively, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
operators of swap execution facilities and certain of their
affiliates.
These actions have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings.
The complaints generally assert claims under federal antitrust law
and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy among
the defendants to preclude exchange trading of interest rate swaps.
The complaints in the individual actions also assert claims under
state antitrust law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount.
Defendants moved to dismiss the class and the first individual
action and the district court dismissed the state common law claims
asserted by the plaintiffs in the first individual action and
otherwise limited the state common law claim in the putative class
action and the antitrust claims in both actions to the period from
2013 to 2016.
On November 20, 2018, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the second individual action,
dismissing the state common law claims for unjust enrichment and
tortious interference, but denying dismissal of the federal and
state antitrust claims.
On March 13, 2019, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion in the
putative class action to amend their complaint to add allegations
related to 2008-2012 conduct, but granted the motion to add limited
allegations from 2013-2016, which the plaintiffs added in a fourth
consolidated amended complaint filed on March 22, 2019.
The plaintiffs in the putative class action moved for class
certification on March 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Suits Over XP Inc. IPO Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 company continues to defend a
putative securities class action lawsuits related to XP Inc.'s (XP)
$2.3 billion December 2019 initial public offering.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in putative securities class actions pending in New
York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of York, filed beginning March 19, 2020,
relating to XP Inc.'s (XP) $2.3 billion December 2019 initial
public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include XP, certain
of its officers and directors and certain of its shareholders.
GS&Co. underwrote 19,326,218 shares of common stock in the December
2019 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $522 million.
On June 22, 2020, plaintiffs in the state court action filed an
amended complaint.
On July 29, 2020, a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the
federal court action.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Securities Lending Antitrust Suit v GS&Co. Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 7, 2020, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Group Inc. and
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC (GS&Co.) continue to defend antitrust suits
alleging conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the
development of electronic platforms for securities lending
transactions.
Group et al. were named as defendants in a putative antitrust class
action and three individual actions relating to securities lending
practices filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York beginning in August 2017.
The complaints generally assert claims under federal and state
antitrust law and state common law in connection with an alleged
conspiracy among the defendants to preclude the development of
electronic platforms for securities lending transactions.
The individual complaints also assert claims for tortious
interference with business relations and under state trade
practices law and, in the second and third individual actions,
unjust enrichment under state common law.
The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
unspecified amounts of compensatory, treble, punitive and other
damages. Group Inc. was voluntarily dismissed from the putative
class action on January 26, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint was denied
on September 27, 2018. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
individual action on December 21, 2018.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the first individual action was
granted on August 7, 2019.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 court approved a settlement
between the firm and the plaintiffs in the class action suit
related to GSE Bonds.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the dealers named as
defendants in numerous putative antitrust class actions relating to
debt securities issued by Federal National Mortgage Association,
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Federal Farm Credit Banks
Funding Corporation and Federal Home Loan Banks (collectively, the
GSEs), filed beginning in February 2019 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The third consolidated amended complaint, filed on September 10,
2019, asserts claims under federal antitrust law in connection with
an alleged conspiracy among the defendants to manipulate the
secondary market for debt securities issued by the GSEs.
The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
treble damages in unspecified amounts.
On June 16, 2020, the court approved a settlement between the firm
and class plaintiffs. The firm has paid the full amount of its
contribution to the settlement.
Beginning in September 2019, the State of Louisiana and the City of
Baton Rouge filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana against the class defendants and a
number of dealers alleging the same claims as in the class action.
In January 2020, the State of Louisiana and City of Baton Rouge
voluntarily dismissed their actions with prejudice against GS&Co.
in favor of participating in the class settlement.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Camping World IPO Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 parties to the New York state
court action have informed the court that they had reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the litigation.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("GS&Co.") is among the underwriters named
as defendants in several putative securities class actions pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
New York Supreme Court, County of New York, and the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, beginning in December
2018.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Camping
World Holdings, Inc. (Camping World) and certain of its officers
and directors, as well as certain of its stockholders.
As to the underwriters, the complaints relate to three offerings of
Camping World common stock, a $261 million October 2016 initial
public offering, a $303 million May 2017 offering and a $310
million October 2017 offering.
GS&Co. underwrote 4,267,214 shares of common stock in the October
2016 initial public offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $94 million, 4,557,286 shares of common
stock in the May 2017 offering representing an aggregate offering
price of approximately $126 million and 3,525,348 shares of common
stock in the October 2017 offering representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $143 million.
GS&Co. and the other defendants moved to dismiss the Illinois state
court action on April 19, 2019 and the Illinois district court
action on May 17, 2019. The Illinois state court action has been
stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss in the Illinois
district court action.
On April 7, 2020, the Illinois district court preliminarily
approved a settlement among the parties to the Illinois district
court action.
On June 30, 2020, the parties to the New York state court action
informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the litigation.
Under the terms of the Illinois district court preliminary
settlement and the New York state court agreement in principle, the
firm will not be required to contribute to either settlement.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Reached in Sea Limited IPO Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs 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 parties in the putative
securities class action suit related to Sea Limited's $989 million
October 2017 initial public offering of American depositary shares
have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation.
Goldman Sachs Asia (GS Asia) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November
1, 2018 in New York Supreme Court, County of New York, relating to
Sea Limited's $989 million October 2017 initial public offering of
American depositary shares.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Sea Limited
and certain of its officers and directors. GS Asia underwrote
28,026,721 American depositary shares representing an aggregate
offering price of approximately $420 million.
On January 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Defendants moved to dismiss on March 26, 2019.
On July 15, 2020, the parties informed the court that they had
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the litigation.
Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the firm will not be
required to contribute to the settlement.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GRACO CHILDREN'S: Varlaro Sues Over Deceptive Booster Seat Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHERYL VARLARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS, INC. and NEWELL BRANDS DTC,
INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-03482-LMM (N.D. Ga., Aug. 21, 2020), is
brought for consumer fraud, breach of warranty, common law fraud,
and unjust enrichment arising from deceptive labels and marketing
of the Defendants' TurboBooster and Affix booster seats.
The Plaintiff contends that Graco's labels and marketing claims
deceive parents of young children by making them believe that the
Booster Seats provide side-impact protection without revealing that
those representations are virtually meaningless.
Graco designs their own testing, and despite Graco's claims that
they perform "rigorous" side-impact testing, they "do[] not publish
or share internal crash test results" and admit that Graco has "set
[their] own testing protocols," according to the complaint. While
Graco aggressively marketed the Booster Seats to U.S. consumers as
safe for children, who weigh as little as 30 pounds, they
simultaneously represented to consumers in Canada that a child
weighing less than 40 pounds risked "SERIOUS INJURY or DEATH" using
the same Booster Seats.
According to the complaint, Graco consciously chose to market their
Booster Seats in a way that concealed all of this information from
consumers, including the Plaintiff. In fact, Graco actively and
aggressively marketed the Booster Seats as a side-impact tested,
side-impact protected booster seat for children in the U.S., who
weighed as little as 30 pounds that would "help protect your child
in frontal, side, rear & rollover crashes."
Graco made their misrepresentations in an effort to increase their
share of the booster seat market and their revenues and profits,
according to the complaint. Because Graco actively concealed
material safety information from consumers, and made affirmative
misrepresentations, parents bought the Booster Seats in reliance on
the numerous express and implied promises, representations,
assurances and/or affirmations from Graco.
The Plaintiff purchased a Graco Booster Seat for her child's use on
June 20, 2019.
Graco Children's Products, Inc., and Newell Brands DTC, Inc.,
design, manufacture, market, sell, and distribute the Booster Seats
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 355-9500
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
- and -
Mark P. Chalos, Esq.
Christopher E. Coleman, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
222 2nd Avenue South, Suite 1640
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: mchalos@lchb.com
ccoleman@lchb.com
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31,
2020, that the company, together with Container Life Cycle
Management (CLCM), continues to defend a putative class action suit
in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.
On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.
The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property.
Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, along
with their legal fees.
The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.
GULF STATES: Nave Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTEN NAVE v. GULF STATES
SERVICES GROUP LLC and MARCUS PICKETT HEUCHAN, Case No.
2:20-cv-00546-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff Quinten Nave, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all other plaintiffs who have
joined this action, asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of this lawsuit as a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act; and
2. authorizing notice be given to other similarly situated
individuals, who should have the opportunity to join this
action.
A copy of Mr. Nave's Motion to Certify Class dated September 1,
2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hBejH4
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
New Orleans, LA 70124
telephone: (504) 267-0777
Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com
- and -
Justin M. Chopin, Esq.
Adam P. Sanderson, Esq.
THE CHOPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1550
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-229-6681
Facsimile: 504-324-0640
E-mail: Justin@ChopinLawFirm.com
Adam@ChopinLawFirm.com
GULFPORT ENERGY: Certification of FLSA Collective Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as BRYON LEFORT, individually and
on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly
situated, v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No.
2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Parties ask the Court for an
order conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
collective action and providing notice to the putative class
members.
Lefort proposes a class consisting of:
"Current or former day-rate employees or independent
contractors of Gulfport Energy Corporation in Ohio, beginning June
19, 2017 to the present, who: (1) were classified as independent
contractors; and (2) received day-rate pay instead of time and
one-half for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a
workweek."
Gulfport Energy Corporation owns and operates oil and gas
properties in the Louisiana Gulf Coast area of the United States.
A copy of the Parties' Bid to Certify Class dated Sept. 2, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mjwdSt at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
Adam C. Gedling, Esq.
Coffman Legal, LLC
1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite 126
Columbus, OH 43220
Telephone: 614 949 1181
Facsimile: 614 386 9964
E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com
agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Rebecca J. Bennett, Esq.
Monica L. Lacks, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
Key Tower
127 Public Square, Suite 4100
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: 216 241-6100
Facsimile: 216-357-4733
E-mail: rebecca.bennett@ogletree.com
monica.lacks@ogletree.com
H&R BLOCK: Continues to Defend Olosoni and Snarr Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative
class action suit entitled, Olosoni and Snarr v. H&R Block, Inc.,
et al.
On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed
against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San
Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093).
The case is styled Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al. The case
was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No.
3:19-cv-03610-SK).
The plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019,
dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In the amended complaint,
the plaintiffs seek to represent classes of all persons, between
May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more
federal tax returns through H&R Block's internet-based filing
system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free
through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program,
and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of
the payments.
The plaintiffs generally allege unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS
Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq.,
California False Advertising Law, California Business and
Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 et seq.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution,
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.
The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the
primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration,
both of which were denied. An appeal of the denial of the motion to
compel arbitration is pending.
The company filed a motion to stay the claims pending the outcome
of the appeal, as well as a motion to dismiss the claims, which
also were denied. The company filed an answer to the amended
complaint on April 7, 2020.
The parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of the
claims of plaintiff Olosoni, without prejudice, and the termination
of plaintiff Olosoni as a named plaintiff in the action on July 21,
2020. A trial date has been set for October 18, 2022.
H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this
matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this
matter."
H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income
tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions,
and other services and products related to income tax return
preparation to the general public primarily in the United States,
Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is
headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.
HDFC BANK: Faces Arora Securities Suit Over Decline in ADSs Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHMI VIG ARORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HDFC BANK LIMITED, ADITYA PURI, SASHIDHAR JAGDISHAN,
and SANTOSH HALDANKAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-04140 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3,
2020), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act relating to the decline in the market value
of the Company's American Depositary Shares.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding HDFC Bank's business,
operational and compliance policies on Bank's 2019 20-F Annual
Report. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) HDFC Bank had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Bank maintained
improper lending practices in its vehicle-financing operations;
(iii) accordingly, earnings generated from the Bank's
vehicle-financing operations were unsustainable; (iv) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material
negative impact on the Bank's financial condition and reputation;
and (v) as a result, the Bank's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
When the truth emerged about the Bank's improper lending practices
into its vehicle-financing operations, Bank's American Depositary
Share (ADS) price fell $1.37 per share, or 2.83%, to close at
$47.02 per share on July 13, 2020.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Bank's securities,
the Plaintiff and Class members have suffered significant losses
and damages.
HDFC Bank Limited is a banking and financial services company, with
principal executive offices located in Mumbai, India.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
- and –
Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 377-1181
Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
- and –
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and –
Daniel C. Cohen, Esq.
Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
Moshe O. Boroosan, Esq.
COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP
300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Telephone: (929) 575-4175
Facsimile: (929) 575-4195
E-mail: dan@cml.legal
edward@cml.legal
moshe@cml.legal
HOOK-N-HAUL LLC: Fails to Properly Pay OT Wages, Gerber Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY GERBER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HOOK-N-HAUL, LLC and BRYAN WHITTENBERGER, Case No.
1:20-cv-01955 (N.D. Ohio, Sept. 1, 2020), is brought against the
Defendants for their alleged failure to properly pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a service
technician and as a welder from June 2018 to December 2018 and from
June 2019 to June 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective
were required by the Defendants to work substantial amounts of
overtime, more than 40 hours per workweek. But, instead of
compensating them at one and one-half times their regular hourly
rates pursuant to the FLSA, the Defendant paid them less than one
and one-half times their regular hourly rates for all hours worked
over 40 hours per workweek.
Hook-N-Haul, LLC, is a trucking, towing, and automotive service
company. Bryan Whittenberger is the owner.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
Emails: jscott@ohiowageslawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
HORIZON FREIGHT: Nash Seeks to Certify Class of Truck Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MARVIN NASH, v. HORIZON
FREIGHT SYSTEM, INC., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:19-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal., Filed February 22, 2019), the
Plaintiff will the Court on November 9, 2020, for an order
certifying a class of:
"truck drivers who drove for Horizon from February 22, 2015,
to the present."
Horizon provides transportation services. The Company offers
trucking, truckload, freight hauling, brokerage, and logistics
solutions.
A copy of Mr. Nash's Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1, 2020 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2ZDiCLU at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robin G. Workman, Esq.
Rachel E. Davey, Esq.
WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
177 Post Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 782-3660
Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
E-mail: robin@workmanlawpc.com
rachel@workmanlawpc.com
ICBC: Deny Wrongdoing in $900-Million Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The Province reports that a lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court
claimed that the Crown corporation responsible for motor vehicle
insurance and the government had engaged in an illegal scheme to
divert hundreds of millions of dollars.
ICBC and the B.C. government are denying any wrongdoing in response
to a proposed $900-million class-action lawsuit filed earlier this
year.
In March, the lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court claimed that the
Crown corporation responsible for motor vehicle insurance and the
government had engaged in an illegal scheme to divert hundreds of
millions of dollars, resulting in losses to accident victims and
driving up insurance rates for B.C. drivers.
The suit argued that provincial laws make the government, through
the Medical Services Plan--and not ICBC--responsible for paying the
costs of visits to physicians by victims of motor vehicle
accidents.
But under an agreement reached in 1988, ICBC has instead for
decades been reimbursing the government, through the Medical
Services Plan, for the services of medical practitioners payable as
a result of ICBC claims, says the lawsuit.
The total amount of the remittances from 1988 to 2018 has been
$899.7 million, with amounts before 1988 and after 2018 known only
to the defendants, it says.
The writ claims that the effect for the government of receiving the
remittances was to raid ICBC's budget for its own benefit and, in
doing so, increase ICBC's operating costs.
It claims that the text behind the agreement has never been
published.
A Williams Lake man named Brayden Methot, who was left a
quadriplegic following an accident north of Kamloops in 2014, is
the representative plaintiff of one of two classes in the lawsuit,
the so-called accident victim class.
It is alleged that Methot, who received $160,000 in accident
benefits, would have received more from ICBC had the corporation
not unlawfully paid the remittances.
Robert Rorison, the representative plaintiff for the ratepayer
class, claims he paid for insurance from 1973 onwards, with
premiums increasing substantially, in part allegedly due to the
scheme.
But in court responses to the lawsuit, ICBC and the government say
the agreement they reached was proper, lawful and in accordance
with ICBC's legal authority.
The ICBC response says that the agreement was disclosed to the
public and was not concealed and was specifically known to Methot,
his lawyers and to members of the proposed accident victims class
and their lawyers.
The Crown corporation denies that Methot is entitled to any further
accident benefits under the regulations in addition to what he has
received and is currently receiving.
"Mr. Methot, and members of the proposed accident victims class,
have suffered no loss in relation to their entitlement to accident
benefits under (the regulations)," says the ICBC response.
Rorison and the members of the proposed ratepayers class have no
cause of action on the basis that ICBC conducted its business in a
manner that increased operating costs, it says.
"That complaint is political, not legal," says the response, which
notes that ICBC rates are set by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
The government's response says that the agreement was made to
further "legitimate" public policies, specifically including
balancing the affordability of operating motor vehicles with
minimizing the cost to society of the operation of motor vehicles,
in a way that maximized flexibility and minimized administrative
expense to both the province and ICBC.
"The province denies that ICBC's ratepayers have been disadvantage
as a result of these reimbursements. If the medical practitioner
services arising out of motor vehicle accidents had been funded in
some other way, many or most ratepayers would have had to pay a
greater amount of money." [GN]
INTEL CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Intel
Corporation. Investors have until the deadline 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 this class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC)
Class Period: April 23, 2020 – July 23, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Shareholders with $50,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Intel 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 Intel had identified a defect mode in its 7-nanometer process
that resulted in yield degradation; (2) that, as a result, the
Company would experience a six-month delay in its production
schedule for 7-nanometer products; (3) that Intel was reasonably
likely to rely on third-party foundries for manufacturing its
7-nanometer products; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Intel
was reasonably likely to lose market share to its competitors who
are already selling 7-nanometer products; 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.
To be a member of this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-9 14-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com[GN]
J.B. HUNT: Williams Employment Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as WILLIE WILLIAMS, LaDON CLINE, and PAUL
CONTRERAS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC. and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2020-01152248-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Orange to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-08066 to the proceeding.
The case alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime and
minimum wages for non-driving work, failed to provide required meal
and rest periods, failed to reimburse business expenses, failed to
provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to pay all
wages due upon termination of employment in violation of California
Labor Code and for unfair business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code.
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., is a transportation and logistics
company based in Lowell, Arkansas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher C. McNatt, Jr., Esq.
SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP
2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 560
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (626) 795-4700
Facsimile: (626) 795-4790
E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com
J2 GLOBAL: Kehoe Law Investigates Securities Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating securities claims on behalf
of investors of J2 Global, Inc. ("J2 Global" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: JCOM) to determine whether J2 Global may have issued
materially misleading business information to investors.
J2 Global investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between October 5, 2015 and June 29, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses
greater than $100,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's
Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley,
Director, Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802,
kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss
the securities investigation or potential legal claims.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against J2 Global and certain
of its officers for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
IF YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO
LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 8, 2020. To be a member of the class action,
you do not need to take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice; or you can take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. No class has yet been certified
in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not
represented by counsel, unless you retain an attorney. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
According to the class action lawsuit, the J2 Global defendants
allegedly made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose that: (1) J2 Global engaged in
undisclosed related-party transactions; (2) J2 Global used
misleading accounting to hide impairments and underperformance in
acquisitions; (3) several so-called independent members of J2
Global's board of directors and audit committee were not
disinterested; and (4) as a result, the J2 Global defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
JOBTRACKS INC: Cox Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts
------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN COX, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOBTRACKS, INC., a California corporation, Case No.
2:20-cv-07983 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2020), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent numerous
telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone
number ending in 7200 beginning on April 14, 2020, in an attempt to
promote its services. Although the Plaintiff responded an opt-out
request, the Defendant continued sending her text messages.
The Plaintiff asserts that she did not provide the Defendant with
her express written consent to be contacted using an automatic
telephone dialing system (ATDS).
Jobtracks, Inc., is a recruiting agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A.
20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
Aventura, FL 33180
Tel: 305-975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
KAI USA: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, Angeles ADA Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. KAI U.S.A., LTD., Case No. 1:20-cv-07094-PAE (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 1, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law by
failing to update or remove access barriers on its Web site,
https://shun.kaiusa.com/.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA, the
regulations implementing the ADA, and NYCHRL.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's Web site lack variety of
features and accommodations because when she visited the Web site
on multiple occasions to make a purchase, she was effectively
barred from being able to determine what specific products were
offered for sale, thereby, denying her a shopping experience
similar to that of a sighted individual. Moreover, the Defendant's
failure to remove access barriers allegedly constituted willful
intentional discrimination against the Plaintiff and others.
KAI U.S.A. Ltd. is a kitchen cutlery company that owns and operates
the Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David P. Force, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: dforce@steinsakslegal.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: No Temporary TCPA Respite for Firm in Becker Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
TCPAWorld has previously reported on the recent Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) trials, tribulations and arguable missteps of
Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
In defending a separate TCPA class action lawsuit, Keller opted for
an alternative strategy. It sought to stay court action based on
the pending Duguid case in the Supreme Court, which focuses on the
definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under
the TCPA.
In Cody Becker v. Keller Williams Realty, Inc. et al., 2020 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 155545, Case No. 19-81451-CIV-SINGHAL/MATHEWMAN, United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, August
27, 2020, Becker complained that "he and the putative class members
received unsolicited prerecorded telemarketing calls and text
messages in violation of the TCPA." Keller Williams moved to stay
the case based on the pendency of Duguid.
Judge Raag Singhal noted that as to the ATDS issue, the law in the
Eleventh Circuit was already settled in the Glasser decision
earlier in 2020. Indeed, the Judge noted that Keller Williams
tipped its hand that, if a stay were not granted, it would file a
"Motion for Summary Judgment which includes, inter alia, an
argument that Plaintiff's entire claim, as alleged and based on the
discovery produced to date, must fail based on the current status
of the law in the 11th Circuit on the issue of what constitutes an
ATDS" (emphasis supplied).
Judge Singhal refused to take the bait. First, there was the
prospect of delaying a case that "was filed in 2019, is set for
trial in March 2021," with discovery proceeding and expert
disclosures almost done. On the other hand, Supreme Court briefs in
Duguid "have not been filed . . . [,]the . . . Court has yet to
set oral argument" and "[t]his Court cannot prognosticate when a
[Supreme Court] decision . . . will be issued." As a result, Judge
Singhal found that the delay accompanying a stay was
"unwarranted."
But wait. There was also the matter of whether a decision in Duguid
would be dispositive of Becker's "entire claim." Again, noting that
the ATDS standard was already set in the Eleventh Circuit, the
Court added that "it is unclear whether a decision in . . .
[Duguid] would have any bearing on Plaintiff's claim of receiving
prerecorded voice calls." Indeed, as TCPAWorld also previously
reported, the "use of 'artificial or prerecorded voices' to contact
individuals is not impacted by" Glasser.
Motion for stay denied. No temporary TCPA respite for Keller
Williams. And let's see what happens if it moves forward with its
summary judgment motion. [GN]
KENMORE PHILATELIC: Calcano Alleges Violation under ADA
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenmore Philatelic, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kenmore Philatelic, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-06917 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020).
Kenmore Philatelic Inc was founded in 1947. The company's line of
business includes the retail sale of products by television,
catalog, and mail-order.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
KENTUCKY: Bar Owners File Class Action v. Gov. Beshear
------------------------------------------------------
Nick Picht at wave3.com reports that two bar owners in the
Highlands are fighting back against what they call
"unconstitutional" state COVID-19 guidelines.
The owners of Dundee Tavern and The Back Door combined to file a
class-action lawsuit against Gov. Andy Beshear. The 21-page
document accuses Beshear's new coronavirus guidelines for bars to
be unconstitutional, asking the state for compensation for income
lost. On August 11, bars in Kentucky were allowed to reopen after a
second forced closure but were required to stop serving alcohol and
10 p.m. and to close at 11 p.m.
The lawsuit also requests compensation for income lost due to the
reduced hours.
"It's been devastating," Alan Hincks, owner of Dundee Tavern, said.
"There's really nothing that we can do and it hurts. And it is
getting to be on the point where you're going to see so many places
that just cannot survive this."
John Dant, the owner of The Back Door, said the new restrictions
have been crippling because his business makes a majority of its
money after 10 p.m.
"The bulk of my business, my food business and bar business, is
from 11 a.m. to 3 a.m," Dant said. "So it's six hours of lost
income, basically.
Hincks feels the state is "targeting" bars and said a curfew should
not be mandatory, so long as the businesses can follow the strict
health guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control.
"What we are looking for as business owners is a sense of someone
is taking care of us in our industry," Hincks said. "We don't feel,
we know, that our industry is being targeted."
Hincks is not sure the lawsuit will get the target off the backs of
bar owners but said since the lawsuit became public, other business
owners have contacted him to add their names to the suit. [GN]
KODAK COMPANY: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Oct. 13 Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
October 13, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased Eastman
Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE: KODK) securities
between July 27, 2020, and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Kodak 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/eastman-kodak-company/. 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 July 27, 2020, Kodak issued a statement to media outlets based
in Rochester, New York, where it is headquartered, on the imminent
public announcement of a "new manufacturing initiative" involving
the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation ("DFC") and
the response to COVID-19. Following media publication of Kodak's
initial statement about the deal, the Company claimed this
information was released inadvertently.
On July 28, 2020, media reported that Company had won a $765
million government loan from the DFC under the Defense Production
Act ("DPA") to produce pharmaceutical materials, including
ingredients for COVID-19 drugs.
On August 1, 2020, Reuters reported new details of an "unusual"
1.75 million option grant to Kodak's Chief Executive Officer, Jim
Continenza, which "occurred because of an understanding" between
Continenza and Kodak's Board of Directors "that had previously
neither been listed in his employment contract nor made public."
On this news, Kodak's shares fell $6.91 per share, or 32%, to close
at $14.94 per share on August 3, 2020, thereby injuring investors.
Over the next several days, several articles reported the
Congressional and regulatory scrutiny regarding the option grants
and the DFC loan.
On August 7, 2020, after the market closed, the DFC announced, "On
July 28, we signed a Letter of Interest with Eastman Kodak. Recent
allegations of wrongdoing raise serious concerns. We will not
proceed any further unless these allegations are cleared."
On this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.15, or 28%, to
close at $10.73 per share on August 10, 2020, thereby injuring
investors further.
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
that the Company had granted its Executive Chairman, James
Continenza, and several other Company insiders millions of dollars'
worth of stock options immediately prior to the Company publicly
disclosing that it had received the $765 million loan, which
Defendants knew would cause Kodak's stock to immediately increase
in value once the deal was announced. In addition, while in
possession of this material non-public information, Continenza and
other Company insiders purchased tens of thousands of the Company's
shares immediately prior to the announcement, again at prices that
they knew would increase exponentially once news of the loan became
public.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kodak securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 13, 2020
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
KROGER COMPANY: Powell Seeks to Certify Assistant Managers' Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM POWELL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KROGER
COMPANY; and DILLON COMPANIES, LLC a/k/a KING SOOPERS, INC. d/b/a
KING SOOPERS/CITY MARKET, Case No. 1:20-cv-01983-RM-NRN (D. Colo.),
the Plaintiff files Motion for Conditional Certification of and
Court-Authorized Notice to:
"all current and former "Assistant Store Managers" who worked
for King Soopers/City Market in the United States at any time
on or after July 7, 2017 to the present who were classified
as exempt from overtime compensation (the "ASM Collective").
The Plaintiff, William Powell, and Opt-Ins, Raymundo Estrada and
Amanda Polko have uniformly alleged that the Defendants failed to
pay them and all other similarly-situated ASMs overtime
compensation in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Colorado wage and hour laws. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege
that they were improperly classified as exempt and denied overtime
compensation for all hours worked above 40 in a work week, the
lawsuit says.
King Soopers/City Market stores are owned and operated by The
Kroger Company and Dillon Companies, LLC a/k/a King Soopers, Inc.
A copy of Powell's Motion for Conditional Certification dated Sept.
3, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/32vjmoe at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative ASM Class and ASM
Collective are:
Jason Conway, Esq.
CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 278-4782
Facsimile: (215) 278-4807
E-mail: jconway@conwaylegalpa.com
LENDING SOLUTIONS: Faces Brannon Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARISSA BRANNON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LENDING SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05153 (E.D.
Ill., Sept. 1, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to pay
regular and overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.
Ms. Brannon was employed by the Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt,
telephone-dedicated employee from approximately March 2018 to July
2020.
According to the complaint, the Defendant had a policy and practice
of requiring its employees to perform work in excess of 40 hours
per week without being properly compensated at a wage of 1.5 times
their respective hourly rate for all time they actually worked, Ms.
Brannon alleges. Moreover, the Defendant failed to maintain true
and accurate time records.
Lending Solutions, Inc., operates customer service call
centers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James X. Bormes, Esq.
Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
8 South Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: 312-201-0575
Fax: 312-332-0600
Email: info@bormeslaw.com
- and –
Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: 312-726-3400
Fax: 312-782-4519
Email: tom@tomryanlaw.com
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Middleton Files Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Liberty Mutual
Personal Insurance Company. The case is styled as Sharon Middleton,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Liberty Mutual Personal Insurance Company, a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-00668-DRC (S.D. Ohio, Aug.
26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Insurance filed
pursuant to a Diversity-Insurance Contract.
Liberty Mutual offers auto insurance, home insurance, and life
insurance.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
Shamis & Gentile, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Ste 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
LILIS 200: Chen Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action Status
--------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as CHANG YAN CHEN, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. LILIS 200 WEST 57TH CORP.
d/b/a Lili's 57 Asian Cuisine & Sushi Bar, BAUMGART'S NEXT DOOR
INC. d/b/a Baumgart's Cafe, 792 RESTAURANT FOOD CORP. d/b/a Lili
and Loo, ALAN PHILLIPS, JONAH PHILLIPS, THEAN CHOO CHONG a/k/a
Alfred Chong, SIEW MOY LOW a/k/a Maggie Low, STEW M. LOW, EPHAN
"DOE", and "MIGI" DOE, Case No. 1:19-cv-07654-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act;
2. ordering the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
this Order to produce an Excel spreadsheet containing
first and last name, last known address with apartment
number (if applicable), the last known telephone numbers,
last known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
dates of employment and position of:
"all current and former non-exempt and non-managerial
employees employed at any time from August 15, 2016 (three
years prior to the filing of the Complaint) to the date
when the Court so-orders the Notice of Pendency and
Consent to Join Form or the date when Defendants provide
the name list, whichever is later";
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs’ counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Chinese and Spanish-speaking American
immigrant worker community;
7. directing the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiff to publish the Notice of Pendency,
in an abbreviated form to be approved by the Court, at the
Defendants' expense by social media and by publication in
newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish a complete
Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be returned as
undeliverable with no forwarding address to be published
in English, and Chinese and Spanish; and
9. directing equitable tolling on the statute of limitation
on this suit be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of
the Opt-in Period.
A copy of Mr. Chen's Motion for collective action status dated
Sept. 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3mp4CiI at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and potential
Rule 23 Class, are:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY: Moore Seeks Refunds Amid COVID-19 Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINETTE MOORE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. LONG ISLAND UNIVERSITY, Case No. 2:20-cv-03843-JS-AKT
(E.D.N.Y., Aug. 21, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for
charging students full tuition and fees since March 2020 when it
closed its campuses and moved to on-line learning in response to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant has not provided the
services or facilities that the students bargained for and were
billed for as part of their tuition and fees. Since moving to
on-line classes, the Defendant has refused to return any portion of
the tuition and fees and continues to charge its students full
tuition and fees, the Plaintiff asserts.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is improperly requiring
its students to pay tuition and fees for services they are not
receiving and facilities that the university is not providing. In
so acting, the Defendant is unjustly enriching itself at the
expense of the Plaintiff and the Class members she seeks to
represent.
The Plaintiff is a resident of New York and attended Long Island
University in the Spring of 2020 as a full-time student. She
graduated in May 2020 with a Master of Science Degree in Family
Nurse Practitioner. For the 2019-2020 academic year, LIU charged
the Plaintiff tuition in excess of $1,276 per credit. LIU also
charged fees at an additional $970 per fulltime student and more
than $480 per part-time student, including fees allocated to using
campus facilities.
Long Island University is a private university with an enrollment
of approximately 16,000 students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq.
SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 421-6492
Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com
LONGFIN CORP: Malik Appeals Orders in Securities Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mohammad A. Malik filed an appeal from the District
Court's Scheduling Order dated June 21, 2019, Opinion and Order
dated November 15, 2019, and Final Judgment dated August 11, 2020,
entered in the lawsuit styled In Re Longfin Corp. Securities Class
Action Litigation, Case No. 18-cv-2933, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (New York City).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 24,
2020, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York vacated the May 14, 2020 Amended Order of
Referral to the Magistrate Judge for an inquest.
The federal securities class action, filed on April 3, 2018, is
brought against Defendants Longfin, Andy Altahawi, other Longfin
executives and insiders on behalf of investors who purchased
Longfin's stock, and Network 1 Financial Securities, Inc.'s.
Network 1 is a registered broker-dealer. Altahawi, who was
Longfin's secretary for much of the period at issue in the suit,
was a registered representative in Network 1's office from 2014 to
2015. Network 1 acted as Longfin's underwriter for the stock
offering that gave rise to the litigation.
The appellate case is captioned as In Re Longfin Corp. Securities
Class Action Litigation, Case No. 20-2948, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Defendant-Appellee Venkat S. Meenavalli, chief executive officer of
LongFin Corp., appears pro se.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant Mohammad A. Malik is represented by:
Donald J. Enright, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1101 30th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 524-4290
E-mail: denright@zlk.com
LUMOS PHARMA: Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Nguyen Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumos Pharma 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 a decision by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals concerning its Petition for
Rehearing en banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the
appellate court's opinion.
On March 18, 2020, the Company, formerly known as NewLink Genetics
Corporation, merged Cyclone Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the company, with what was then known as Lumos
Pharma, Inc., and has since been renamed "Lumos Pharma Sub, Inc."
("Private Lumos"), and changed the name "NewLink Genetics
Corporation" to "Lumos Pharma, Inc." (the "Merger").
On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v.
NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545 (the "Securities
Action").
Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed
Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their
selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the
Securities Action.
On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting claims under the federal securities laws against NewLink,
NewLink's former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and
NewLink's former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas
Vahanian, (collectively, the "Defendants").
The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false
and/or misleading statements that caused losses to NewLink's
investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on July 14, 2017.
On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY
dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim,
without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018
to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in
their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities
laws against the Defendants.
Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint
alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading
statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and
efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused
losses to NewLink's investors.
The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the
second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and
costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and
other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NewLink's stock
during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May
9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly
suffered financial harm as a result.
The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the
Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for
failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case.
On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The
briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July
2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
was held on October 21, 2019.
In an opinion dated July 13, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the second
amended complaint in part, vacated the district court’s dismissal
of the second amended complaint in part, and remanded the matter to
the district court for further proceedings.
On August 6, 2020, the Company filed a Petition for Rehearing en
banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the opinion from the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals and is awaiting the Court's
determination concerning the petition.
The Company intends to continue defending the Securities Action
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company
operates as an stage biopharmaceutical development company
developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos
Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical
needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based
in Austin, Texas.
MACY'S WEST: Pitman Employment Suit Removed to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as BRIAN PITMAN, individually, and on behalf of
all employees similarly situated v. MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.;
MACY'S, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
20CECG01623, was removed from the Superior Court of California for
the County of Fresno to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-at-00661 to the proceeding.
The case alleges that the Defendants failed to pay overtime and
minimum wages, failed to provide required meal and rest periods,
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failed to
pay all wages due upon termination in violations of California
Labor Code and for unfair business practices in violation of
California Business and Professions Code.
Macy's West Stores, Inc., is a company that operates department
stores with principal place of business located in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Macy's, Inc., is an American department store chain based in
Cincinnati.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Cary G. Palmer, Esq.
Erika Barbara Pickles, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 341-0404
Facsimile: (916) 341-0141
E-mail: cary.palmer@jacksonlewis.com
erika.pickles@jacksonlewis.com
- and –
Michael C. Christman, Esq.
MACY'S LAW DEPARTMENT
11477 Olde Cabin Road, Suite 400
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 342-6334
Facsimile: (314) 342-6366
E-mail: michael.christman@macys.com
MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maiden Holdings, 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 pending before the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.
A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden
Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M.
Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on February 11, 2019.
On February 19, 2020, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on
May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint (the Amended Complaint). The Amended Complaint asserts
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and
Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part
from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves
in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust.
Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings'
representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial
statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss
reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of
Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the
misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell,
causing Plaintiffs to incur losses.
The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend itself.
Maiden said, "It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed
against the Company, its subsidiaries and its respective officers
due to the diminution in value of our securities as a result of our
operating results and financial condition. It is currently
uncertain as to the effect of such litigation on our business,
operating results and financial condition."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company,
previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty
insurers in the United States ("U.S."), Europe and select other
global markets. The company operates internationally providing
branded auto and credit life insurance products through insurer
partners to retail clients in the EU and other global markets
through Maiden Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden Global") and its
subsidiaries. The company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda.
MANAGED FUTURES: Iowa Public Employees' Suit v. MS&Co. Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2020, that Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
("MS&Co."), continues to defend a purported antitrust class action
suit entitled, Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v.
Bank of America Corporation et al.
In August of 2017, MS&Co. was named as a defendant in a purported
antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Bank of
America Corporation et al.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that MS&Co., together with a number
of other financial institution defendants, violated U.S. antitrust
laws and New York state law in connection with their alleged
efforts to prevent the development of electronic exchange-based
platforms for securities lending.
The class action complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class
of borrowers and lenders who entered into stock loan transactions
with the defendants.
The class action complaint seeks, among other relief, certification
of the class of plaintiffs and treble damages.
On September 27, 2018, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the class action complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P is private fund launched by
Ceres Managed Futures LLC. It is managed by Graham Capital
Management, L.P. The fund engages in the speculative trading of
futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and
forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity
interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies,
financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products.
It was formerly known as Managed Futures Charter Graham LP. Managed
Futures Premier Graham L.P was formed on July 15, 1998 and is
domiciled in the United States.
MANAGED FUTURES: Settlement in GSE Bonds Suit Wins Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P 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 final
approval of the settlement in the class action suit entitled, In re
GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation.
Beginning on March 25, 2019, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co.")
was named as a defendant in a series of putative class action
complaints filed in the Southern District of NY, the first of which
is styled Alaska Electrical Pension Fund v. BofA Secs., Inc., et
al.
Each complaint alleged a conspiracy to fix prices and restrain
competition in the market for unsecured bonds issued by the
following Government-Sponsored Enterprises: the Federal National
Mortgage Association; the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation;
the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation; and the Federal
Home Loan Banks. The purported class period for each suit is from
January 1, 2012 to June 1, 2018.
Each complaint raised a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
and sought, among other things, injunctive relief and treble
compensatory damages.
On May 23, 2019, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint styled In re GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation, with
a purported class period from January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2016.
On June 13, 2019, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint.
On August 29, 2019, the court denied MS&Co.'s motion to dismiss.
On December 15, 2019, MS&Co. and certain other defendants entered
into a stipulation of settlement to resolve the action as against
each of them in its entirety.
On June 16, 2020, the court granted final approval of the
settlement.
Managed Futures Premier Graham L.P is private fund launched by
Ceres Managed Futures LLC. It is managed by Graham Capital
Management, L.P. The fund engages in the speculative trading of
futures contracts, options on futures and forward contracts, and
forward contracts on physical commodities and other commodity
interests, including, but not limited to, foreign currencies,
financial instruments, metals, energy, and agricultural products.
It was formerly known as Managed Futures Charter Graham LP. Managed
Futures Premier Graham L.P was formed on July 15, 1998 and is
domiciled in the United States.
MARION, FL: Johnson Seeks to Identity Medically-Unsafe Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Charles Johnson, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Billy Woods,
Marion County Jail, Case No. 5:20-cv-00407-RBD-PRL (D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus;
2. granting temporary restraining order and preliminary
injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Riles of
Civil Procedure;
3. directing the Defendants to take measures to improve
hygiene and safety at the jail; and
4. directing the Defendants to promptly produce to the Court
list of information relevant to inmates within the
proposed medically-vulnerable subclass.
The Petitioner is a 38 y/o and was detained by Ocola Police
Department and housed in Marion County Jail. He suffers from
chronic medical conditions and face imminent risk or serious
illness or death.
The Petitioner filed complaint against the Defendants concerning
the safety and well-being of inmates in the custody of Marion
County Jail during COVID-19 pandemic.
A copy of the Petitioner's Motion dated Sept. 2, 2020 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3mvFmaH at no extra
charge.[CC]
MD BUYING: Fuszner TCPA Suit Moved From Cir. Ct. to E.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as CHARLES D. FUSZNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MD BUYING GROUP, LLC,
d/b/a MD BUYING GROUP, JOEL M. LERNER, and CLAIRE C. LERNER, Case
No. 2011-CC00656, was removed from the Missouri Circuit Court, St.
Charles County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Missouri on September 3, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Missouri assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-01196 to the proceeding.
The case alleges that the Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
MD Buying Group, LLC, doing business as MD Buying Group, is a
medical purchasing company with principal place of business located
in Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mary Ann L. Wymore, Esq.
Peter W. Mueller, Esq.
GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE, P.C.
10 South Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 241-9090
Facsimile: (314) 241-8624
E-mail: mlw@greensfelder.com
pmueller@greensfelder.com
MEDCIPHERS LLC: Fails to Pay HHAs' Overtime Wages, Lowe Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAWANDA LOWE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. MEDCIPHERS, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-03480-CAP (N.D. Ga.,
Aug. 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the
Plaintiff and other Home Health Aides one-and-one-half their
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Home Health Aide on
February 24, 2017. As of the date of this filing, she remains
employed by the Defendant as a Home Health Aide.
Medciphers, LLC, is an Atlanta, Georgia-based multi service health
care company providing home care, translation and interpretation
services, non-emergency transportation, skilled nursing and
personal support aides.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin M. Scott, Esq.
SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C.
160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (678) 780-4880
Facsimile: (478) 575-2590
E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com
- and -
Beth A. Moeller, Esq.
MOELLER BARBAREE LLP
1175 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1850
Atlanta, GA 30361
Telephone: (404) 748-9122
E-mail: bmoeller@moellerbarbaree.com
MEDICREDIT INC: Miles Sues Over Unsolicited Debt Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY MILES, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. MEDICREDIT, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-01186 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 1,
2020), arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began receiving calls and
prerecorded voice messages to his cellular telephone number (314)
XXX-2368 in January 2020 until March 2020 allegedly from the
Defendant, who was attempting to contact a third party to collect a
debt in default. Despite informing the Defendant, on at least one
occasion that the Plaintiff answered the Defendant's call, that it
was placing calls to the wrong person, the Defendant continued to
place calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number.
The Plaintiff also asserts that he never provided his cellular
telephone number, as well as his prior express consent to the
Defendant to place any calls to his cellular telephone number.
Medicredit, Inc., is a debt collector.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony LaCroix, Esq.
LaCROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 956
Kansas City, MO 64102
Tel: (816) 399-4380
Email: Tony@lacroixlawkc.com
- and –
Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
7601 N. Federal Highway, Suite A-230
Boca Raton, FL 33487
Tel: (561) 826-5477
Email: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com
MEREDITH CORP: Discovery Stayed in Iowa Putative Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meredith Corporation 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 discovery has been stayed in the putative class
action suit pending before the Southern District of Iowa.
On September 6, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its
Chief Financial Officer, seeking to represent a class of
shareholders who acquired securities of the Company between May 10,
2018, and September 4, 2019 (the New York Action).
On September 12, 2019, a shareholder filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Iowa against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its Chief
Financial Officer, and its Chairman of the Board seeking to
represent a class of shareholders who acquired securities of the
Company between January 31, 2018, and September 5, 2019 (the Iowa
Action).
Both complaints allege that the defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Both complaints assert claims under the federal
securities laws and seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.
On November 12, 2019, the plaintiff shareholder withdrew the New
York Action, and the action has been dismissed. On November 25,
2019, the City of Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund was
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff in the Iowa Action.
On March 9, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
the Iowa Action, now seeking to represent a class of shareholders
who acquired securities of the Company between January 31, 2018,
and September 30, 2019. The defendants intend to vigorously oppose
the Iowa Action.
On June 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Iowa
Action.
Under the court's scheduling order, it appears likely the Company
will receive a decision on the motion sometime in late 2020 or
2021. Until then, discovery is stayed.
The Company expresses no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of
these matters.
Meredith Corporation is a diversified media company primarily
focuses on publishing and broadcasting. The Company's publishing
segment includes magazine and book publishing, marketing,
interactive media, licensing, and other related operations.
Meredith operates network-affiliated television stations and
develops syndicated television programs. The company is based in
Des Moines, Iowa.
MICROELECTRONICS CORP: Settles Securities Suit for $3MM
-------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED UNITED
MICROELECTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICAN DEPOSITARY SHARES DURING THE
PERIOD OCTOBER 28, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 1, 2018, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE
ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS")
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed Lead
Plaintiff Mark Nelson ("Lead Plaintiff") on behalf of himself and
all members of the Class, and Defendants United Microelectronics
Corporation ("UMC" or the "Company") and certain of its current and
former officers and/or directors, including Shan-Chieh Chien, Jason
Wang, Po-Wen Yen, and Chitung Liu (collectively with UMC,
"Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of $3,000,000
(the "Settlement Amount").
A hearing will be held before the Honorable Victor Marrero, United
States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, in
Courtroom 15B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007 at 10:00 am.
on January 15, 2021 (the "Settlement Hearing") for, among other
things, the purpose of determining: (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii)
whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of 30% of
the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of litigation expenses of
approximately $75,000, and an award to the Lead Plaintiff Mark
Nelson should be approved; and (iv) whether the Class Action should
be dismissed with prejudice. The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing without providing further notice. You do NOT
need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution
from the Net Settlement Fund.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED UMC AMERICAN DEPOSITARY
SHARES BETWEEN THE PERIOD OCTOBER 28, 2015 AND NOVEMBER 1, 2018,
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS CLASS ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy
of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at UMC Securities
Litigation, Claims Administrator, Analytics Consulting LLC, P.O.
Box 2007, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2007; by toll-free phone at
1-855-917-4968; or by visiting the website
www.UMCSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class,
in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no later
than January 8, 2021 to the Claims Administrator, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion
request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action
whether or not you make a claim. If you would like to be excluded
from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion so that it
is received no later than December 16, 2020, in the manner and form
explained in the detailed Notice. Any objection to the Settlement,
Plan of Allocation, Class Counsel's request for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, or payment to Lead
Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed
Notice and received no later than December 16, 2020 [GN]
MIDLAND CREDIT: Matyas Asserts Breach of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc. The case is styled as Lipa Matyas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants,
Case No. 3:20-cv-11516 (D. N.J., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Encore Capital Group, Inc., is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Y. Deutsch
Stein Saks PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Tel: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MONARCH RECOVERY: Oleson Files Placeholder Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled as DIANA OLESON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. MONARCH RECOVERY
MANAGEMENT INC., Case No. 20-cv-1354 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff
filed a "placeholder" motion for class certification in order to
prevent against a "buy-off" attempt, a tactic class-action
defendants sometimes use to attempt to prevent a case from
proceeding to a decision on class certification by attempting to
"moot" the named plaintiff's claims by tendering the plaintiff
individual (but not classwide) relief.
The Plaintiff asks the Court for an order to certify class, appoint
himself as the class representative, and appoint his attorneys as
class counsel.
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016), the
Supreme Court held "an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case," and "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair
opportunity to show that certification is warranted." The Sixth
Circuit applied Campbell-Ewald in an unreported opinion in Family
Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. MD On-Line Sols., Inc., No. 15-3508,
2016 WL 384823, at (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016).
In Wilson v. Gordon, F.3d 934, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2016), the Sixth
Circuit held that, even where "[the parties [did] not dispute that
all eleven named plaintiffs' individual claims became moot before
the district court certified the class," the "picking-off"
exception applied and allowed the named plaintiffs with moot
individual claims to pursue class certification, which would
"relate back" to the filing of the complaint, applying Deposit
Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980). The Sixth
Circuit held this ruling was consistent with Campbell-Ewald, 136 S.
Ct. at 672, which refused to put defendants "in the driver's seat"
on class certification.
A copy of Ms. Oleson's Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 1, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2FAYsuQ at no
extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John D. Blythin, Esq.
ADEMI & O'REILLY
3620 East Layton Avenue
Cudahy, WI 53110
Telephone: (414) 482-8000
Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
E-mail: jblythin@ademilaw.com
MYLAN NV: Bid for Summary Judgment in EpiPen(R) Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 for summary judgment as to the remaining
claims asserted by plaintiffs in the class action suit initiated by
indirect purchasers of EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector remains pending.
Mylan Specialty and other Mylan-affiliated entities have been named
as defendants in putative indirect purchaser class actions relating
to the pricing and/or marketing of the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert violations of various federal
and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), as well as
common law claims.
Plaintiffs' claims include purported challenges to the prices
charged for the EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and/or the marketing of the
product in packages containing two auto-injectors, as well as
allegedly anti-competitive conduct.
A Mylan officer and other non-Mylan affiliated companies were also
named as defendants in some of the class actions.
These lawsuits were filed in the various federal and state courts
and have either been dismissed or transferred into a multidistrict
litigation ("MDL") in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas and have been consolidated.
Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint,
which was granted in part and denied in part. On December 7, 2018,
the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On February
27, 2020, the District Court issued an order denying in part and
granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The District Court declined to certify consumer protection and
unjust enrichment damages classes, as well as an injunctive relief
class. The District Court certified an antitrust class that applies
to 17 states and a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) class.
The company filed a petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision on March 12, 2020, which was denied. On July
15, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining claims asserted by plaintiffs. The motion is pending. A
trial date has been scheduled for April 2021.
Mylan said, "We believe that the remaining claims in these lawsuits
are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."
Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
MYLAN NV: Class Certification Bid in New York Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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' motion for class certification in the
suit pending before the Southern District of New York has been
granted.
Purported class action complaints were filed in October 2016
against Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc. and certain of their current and
former directors and officers (collectively, for purposes of this
paragraph, the "defendants") in the Southern District of New York
on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V. and/or
Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ.
The complaints alleged that defendants made false or misleading
statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation
of federal securities laws, in connection with disclosures relating
to Mylan N.V. and Mylan Inc.'s classification of their EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector as a non-innovator drug for purposes of the maximum
drug retail prices (MDRP).
The complaints sought damages, as well as the plaintiffs' fees and
costs.
On March 20, 2017, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
alleging substantially similar claims and seeking substantially
similar relief, but adding allegations that defendants made false
or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact
in connection with allegedly anticompetitive conduct with respect
to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and certain generic drugs, and alleging
violations of both federal securities laws (on behalf of a
purported class of certain purchasers of securities of Mylan N.V.
and/or Mylan Inc. on the NASDAQ) and Israeli securities laws (on
behalf of a purported class of certain purchasers of securities of
Mylan N.V. on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange).
On March 28, 2018, defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint was granted in part (including the dismissal of
claims arising under Israeli securities laws) and denied in part.
On July 6, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
including certain current and former directors and officers and
additional allegations in connection with purportedly
anticompetitive conduct with respect to EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector and
certain generic drugs.
On August 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on
March 29, 2019. On June 17, 2019, plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint, including certain current and former directors and
employees/officers and additional allegations in connection with
purportedly anticompetitive conduct with respect to certain generic
drugs.
On July 31, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain of
the claims in the third amended complaint, which was granted in
part and denied in part on April 6, 2020. On August 30, 2019,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on April 6, 2020.
The certified class covers all persons or entities that purchased
Mylan common stock between February 21, 2012 and May 24, 2019
excluding defendants, current and former officers and directors of
Mylan, members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which defendants have or had a controlling interest.
Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
MYLAN NV: EpiPen Direct Purchasers' Suit Pending in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mylan N.V. 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 direct
purchaser class actions in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota relating to contracts with certain pharmacy benefit
managers concerning EpiPen(R) Auto-Injector.
Beginning in March 2020, Mylan Inc. and Mylan Specialty, together
with other non-Mylan affiliated companies, were named as defendants
in putative direct purchaser class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota relating to contracts
with certain pharmacy benefit managers concerning EpiPen(R)
Auto-Injector.
The plaintiffs claim that the alleged conduct resulted in the
exclusion or restriction of competing products and the elimination
of pricing constraints in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and federal antitrust law.
Plaintiffs have requested the consolidation of these lawsuits.
Mylan said, "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are
without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously."
Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded-generic,
brand-name, and over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical products in
North America, Europe, and internationally. The company was founded
in 1961 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania.
NETAPP INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
NetApp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
On August 14, 2019, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California, naming as defendants NetApp and certain of our
executive officers.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
SEC Rule 10b-5, by making materially false or misleading statements
with respect to our financial guidance for fiscal 2020, as provided
on May 22, 2019.
Members of the alleged class are purchasers of the Company's stock
between May 22, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the date we provided
revised financial guidance for fiscal 2020. The complaint alleges
unspecified damages based on the decline in the market price of our
shares following the issuance of the revised guidance on August 1,
2019.
We believe the complaint is without merit and intend to defend the
case vigorously.
NetApp said, "No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC
report."
NetApp, Inc., incorporated on November 1, 2001, provides software,
systems and services to manage and store customer data. The Company
enables enterprises, service providers, governmental organizations,
and partners to envision, deploy and evolve their information
technology (IT) environments. The company is based in Sunnyvale,
California.
NEW YORK: Rupp Baase Files Suit v. Gov. Over Wedding Guest Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Breidenbach at Syracuse News report that a Buffalo law
firm filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court against Gov.
Andrew Cuomo in an effort to increase the number of people who can
attend weddings across New York state.
The lawsuit expands on a successful challenge in Western New York
by the same firm that allowed one couple to invite more than the
limit of 50 guests to their wedding.
Cuomo's lawyers fought that ruling and successfully blocked a
second couple in that original case from hosting a bigger wedding.
That case is pending before a Court of Appeals panel.
Judge Glenn Suddaby, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District, ruled earlier this month in favor of the two
couples who had booked weddings at Arrowhead Golf Club, in Akron.
The lawsuit was initiated by Lucas James, co-owner of the golf
course.
The new lawsuit is intended to clear up the law firm's belief that
Suddaby's ruling applies across New York state and not just to the
two parties that sued. It was filed by the same Buffalo firm, Rupp
Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham.
The law firm is asking restaurants and wedding venue owners to
contact them to discuss how the state's 50-person limit has
affected their businesses.
The ruling allows wedding venues to operate under the same rules as
restaurants. The current state guidelines allow restaurants to
serve dinner indoors at 50% capacity.
The couples argued that Cuomo's limit of 50 people at gatherings,
including weddings, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments by
"forbidding them to preside or participate in religious weddings
according to the dictates of their conscious and religious
beliefs," the lawsuit said.
Cuomo's staff called the ruling "irresponsible at best" and said it
opens the door to large, non-essential gatherings that endanger
public health.
The governor's office has not issued guidance specific to weddings,
but has said the 50-person limit on gatherings applies to weddings
and any event. [GN]
NEW YORK: Stiegman Appeals N.D.N.Y. Text Order to Second Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman filed an appeal from the
District Court's Text Order dated August 18, 2020, entered in the
lawsuit entitled Stiegman v. New York State Office of Information
Technology Services, Case No. 19-cv-18, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moves for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The proposed Class is defined as:
Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
York Department of Civil Service classified position.
Under Rule 23(c)(5), the Plaintiff also proposes certification of
this Subclass:
Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
York Department of Civil Service classified position
represented by the Public Employee Federation.
The case is about an alleged unlawful conspiracy involving a New
York State agency, and other accomplices, which have attempted to
deprive a discrete and insular minority, a class of older
individuals with a disability, of protected rights in violation of
the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.
The named Plaintiff, Mr. Stiegman, the proposed class
representative, is a former New York State employee, who was
allegedly discriminated and retaliated against due to his age and
disability, which included a personal history of cancer. On
several occasions, Mr. Stiegman alleges he was denied reasonable
accommodations, development opportunities, timely and fair
evaluations, and subsequently, was retaliated against for invoking
his Constitutional and federally protected rights.
The appellate case is captioned as Stiegman v. New York State
Office of Information Technology Services, Case No. 20-2988, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman, appears pro
se.[BN]
Defendant-Appellee New York State Office of Information Technology
Services is represented by:
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-8433
Facsimile: (212) 416-8369
NEW YORK: Stiegman Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit to 2nd Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman filed an appeal from the
District Court's Text Order dated August 31, 2020, entered in his
lawsuit entitled Stiegman v. New York State Office of Information
Technology Services, Case No. 19-cv-18, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of New York (Syracuse).
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
moves for class certification pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The proposed Class is defined as:
Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
York Department of Civil Service classified position.
Under Rule 23(c)(5), the Plaintiff also proposes certification of
this Subclass:
Any individual aged 40 years or older with a disability, as
defined by the American with Disabilities Act, and who
is/was employed, or pursuing employment, in a State of New
York Department of Civil Service classified position
represented by the Public Employee Federation.
The case is about an alleged unlawful conspiracy involving a New
York State agency, and other accomplices, which have attempted to
deprive a discrete and insular minority, a class of older
individuals with a disability, of protected rights in violation of
the U.S. Constitution and Federal law.
The named Plaintiff, Mr. Stiegman, the proposed class
representative, is a former New York State employee, who was
allegedly discriminated and retaliated against due to his age and
disability, which included a personal history of cancer. On
several occasions, Mr. Stiegman alleges he was denied reasonable
accommodations, development opportunities, timely and fair
evaluations, and subsequently, was retaliated against for invoking
his Constitutional and federally protected rights.
The appellate case is captioned as Stiegman v. New York State
Office of Information Technology Services, Case No. 20-3020, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Plaintiff-Appellant Victor Karl Daniel Stiegman, appears pro
se.[BN]
Defendant-Appellee New York State Office of Information Technology
Services is represented by:
Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 416-8433
Facsimile: (212) 416-8369
NISSAN NORTH: Ayala Sues Over Mechanics/Technicians' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE J. AYALA JR., on behalf of himself and as representative of
other class members similarly situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC. D/B/A NISSAN USA, a California corporation, and wholly owned
subsidiary of Nissan Motor Company of Japan, Case No.
6:20-cv-01625-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., Sept. 3, 2020), arises from the
Defendant's failure to compensate the Plaintiff and other mechanics
and/or technicians appropriate minimum and overtime wages.
The lawsuit is also brought for the Defendant's failure to properly
maintain and preserve payroll records, and for unlawful wage
deductions or kickbacks in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida's Minimum Wage Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a mechanic and/or
technician in the service department of Nissan from approximately
September 2009 through March 2020.
Nissan North America, Inc., doing business as Nissan USA, is a
manufacturer of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, with its
principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin K. Ross Andino, Esq.
Jolynn M. Falto, Esq.
Mitchell E. Grodman, Esq.
Lisa E. Bolinger, Esq.
ECLAT LAW, LLP
307 Cranes Roost Boulevard 2010
Altamonte Springs, FL 32701
Telephone: (407) 636-7004
E-mail: kevin.ross@eclatlaw.com
jfalto@eclatlaw.com
mgrodman@eclatlaw.com
lbolinger@eclatlaw.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Correctional Officers Seek Class Status
-------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW HODGE, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAEFETY and DIVISION OF ADULT
CORRECTION AND JUVENILE JUSTICE, Case No. 5:19-cv-00478-D
(E.D.N.C.), with the Defendants' consent, the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Collective;
2. approving the form of notice, including the Notice of
Pending Lawsuit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages and
Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form;
3. requiring the Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs'
counsel with contact information for the putative
Collective members
4. directing the notice of this action, in the approved form,
and the opportunity to join, be provided by the
Plaintiffs' counsel to all others similarly situated; and
5. granting all other relief deemed just and proper by the
Court.
The Plaintiffs, who are current and former employees of the
Defendants who worked as correctional officers or correctional
sergeants at Defendants' facilities, filed their Class and
Collective Action Complaint on October 28, 2019. They allege that
the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to
pay them for certain work performed before the start of, and after
the end of, their paid shifts.
The North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an umbrella
agency that carries out many of the state's law enforcement,
emergency response and homeland security functions. The Division of
Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice is responsible for the care,
custody and supervision of all adults and juveniles sentenced after
conviction for violations of North Carolina law.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2E08KEi
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Laura E. Reasons, Esq.
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DiCELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
Facsimile: (312) 253-1443
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
lreasons@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
R. Michael Smith, Esq.
Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
mike@cuneolaw.com
kvandyck@cuneolaw.com
mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP
900 W. Morgan St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
pat@whitfieldbryson.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles E. Johnson, Esq.
John R. Wester, Esq.
Andrew R. Wagner, Esq.
ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, P.A.
101 North Tryon Street, Suite 900
Charlotte, NC 28246
E-mail: cejohnson@robinsonbradshaw.com
jwester@robinsonbradshaw.com
awagner@robinsonbradshaw.com
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Continues to Defend Barney Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, 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 federal class
action suit initiated by George Barney.
On December 28, 2018, a federal putative class action complaint was
filed by George Barney against the Company and its former and
current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery Chuang
and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Security Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (the
Barney Action).
Richard Deutner and ITENT EDV were subsequently substituted as
plaintiffs and, on June 18, 2019, they filed an Amended Complaint.
In the Amended Complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover compensatory
damages caused by the Company's alleged violations of federal
securities laws during the period from December 3, 2015 through
December 20, 2018.
Plaintiffs claim that the Company: (1) overstated its purported
strategic alliance with a customer in China to operate as lead
designer and manufacturer for all furnishings in such customer's
planned $460 million senior care center in China; (2) the Company
inflated its reported sales in 2016 and 2017 with the Company's two
major customers; and (3) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
In support of these claims, plaintiffs rely primarily upon the
aforementioned Seeking Alpha blog in which it was claimed that an
investigation of the Company failed to confirm the existence of
several entities identified as significant customers, Plaintiffs
purported to verify some of the information alleged in the Seeking
Alpha blog.
By Order entered December 2, 2019, the Court denied defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. Defendants have
accordingly filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint denying its
material allegations.
The Court also entered a scheduling order setting a final pretrial
conference for July 20, 2020, which was since been continued to
October 19, 2020.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs,
manufactures, markets, and sells residential and commercial
furniture for middle and upper middle-income consumers worldwide.
Nova LifeStyle, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in
Commerce, California.
ONESPAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Remind of Oct. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf
of investor that purchased or acquired the securities of OneSpan
Inc. ("OneSpan" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: OSPN) between May 9,
2018 and August 11, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The case filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit OneSpan Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance
policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) OneSpan had
inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, OneSpan overstated its
revenue relating to certain contracts with customers involving
software licenses in its financial statements spread out over the
quarters from the first quarter of 2018 to the first quarter of
2020; (iii) as a result, it was foreseeably likely that the Company
would eventually have to delay one or more scheduled earnings
releases, conference calls, and/or financial filings with the SEC;
(iv) OneSpan downplayed the negative impacts of errors in its
financial statements; (v) all the foregoing, once revealed was
foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the
Company's financial results and reputation; and (vi) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On August 11, 2020, during after-market hours, OneSpan disclosed to
shareholders that it would not timely file its quarterly report for
the quarter ended June 30, 2020, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission; reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had
declined; and withdrew its full year 2020 earnings guidance, which
the Company had affirmed one quarter earlier.
On this news, OneSpan's share price fell $12.36 per share, or over
39%, to close at $18.84 per share on August 12, 2020.
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. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased OneSpan securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/onespaninc-ospn-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-294/apply/
contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP.
The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein
Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212)
779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the
State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not
guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future
matter.
Matthew E. Guarnero
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
Tel No: (877) 779-1414
E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
OPPORTUNITY FINANCIAL: DeMarquis Alleges Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Opportunity
Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Michael DeMarquis,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Opportunity Financial, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
6:20-cv-00784-ADA-JCM (W.D. Tex., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed over Restrictions of Use of
Telephone Equipment.
Opportunity Financial LLC is a company that specializes in
providing personal loans.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd.
2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8180
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
OSC SPORTS: Calcano Asserts Breach of Americans w/ Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OSC Sports, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant to
the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as Marcos
Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OSC Sports, Inc. and Olympia Sports
Acquisitions LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-06913 (S.D. N.Y.,
Aug. 26, 2020).
OSC Sports, Inc. retails sporting goods. The Company offers sport
and fitness equipment, outfits, footwear, and accessories. OSC
Sports markets its products in the State of Maine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Tel: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: nyjg@aol.com
OTELCO INC: Plumley Suit Challenges Proposed Sale to Future Fiber
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK PLUMLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OTELCO INC., STEPHEN P. MCCALL, BARBARA M.
DONDIEGO-STEWART, HOWARD J. HAUG, DAYTON R. JUDD, BRIAN A. ROSS,
and RICHARD A. CLARK., Case No. 1:20-cv-01165-UNA (D. Del., Sept.
1, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Otelco will be acquired
by Future Fiber FincCo, Inc., and Olympus Merger Sub, Inc.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants filed a false and
misleading Proxy Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission with respect to the Proposed Transaction, pursuant to
which Otelco's stockholders will receive $11.75 in cash for each
share of Otelco Class A common stock they own.
The Proxy Statement has material information that was allegedly
omitted, that includes Otelco's financial projections, the analyses
performed by Otelco's financial advisor Houlihan Lokey Capital,
Inc. in connection with the Proposed Transaction, and the
engagement of Otelco's additional financial advisor, Lazard Middle
Market LLC. The information is important to stockholders in
deciding how to vote on the Proposed Transaction, the Plaintiff
asserts.
The Plaintiff owns Otelco common stock.
Otelco Inc. provides wireline telecommunications services in
Alabama, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and West Virginia. Stephen P. McCall is Chairman of the Board of
the Company. Barbara M. Dondiego-Stewart, Howard J. Haug, Dayton R.
Judd, and Brian A. Ross are directors of the Company. Richard A.
Clark is President, Chief Executive Officer, and a director of the
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Fax: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
PAYSIGN INC: Smith & Duvall Suit Dismissed, 2 Others Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Paysigin, 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 case, Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et
al., has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.
Three complaints were filed, Yilan Shi v. Paysign, Inc. et. al.,
filed on March 19, 2020, Lorna Chase v. Paysign, Inc. et. al.,
filed on March 25, 2020 and Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et.
al., filed on April 2, 2020 (collectively, the Complaints).
The putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of a class of
persons who acquired the Company's common stock from March 12, 2020
through March 15, 2020, inclusive.
The Complaints allege that the Company, Mark R. Newcomer, and Mark
Attinger violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Messrs.
Newcomer and Attinger violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
by making materially false or misleading statements, or failing to
disclose material facts, regarding the company's internal control
over financial reporting and its financial statements.
The Complaints seek certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, and attorney's fees and costs.
Smith & Duvall v. Paysign, Inc. et. al. was voluntarily dismissed
by the plaintiff on May 21, 2020.
Paysign has not been served any of the complaints as of the date of
this filing and cannot give any meaningful probability of outcome
or damages.
Paysigin, Inc. a vertically integrated provider of prepaid card
programs and processing services for corporate, consumer and
government applications. The company's payment solutions are
utilized by its corporate customers as a means to increase customer
loyalty, increase patient adherence rates, reduce administration
costs and streamline operations. The company is based in Henderson,
Nevada.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Kehoe Law Firm Probes Investors' Securities Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating securities claims on behalf
of investors of Pilgrim's Pride Corporation ("Pilgrim's Pride" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: PPC) to determine whether Pilgrim's Pride
may have issued materially misleading business information to
investors.
Pilgrim's Pride investors who purchased, or otherwise acquired, the
Company's securities between February 9, 2017 and June 3, 2020,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), and suffered losses
greater than $100,000 are encouraged to complete Kehoe Law Firm's
Securities Class Action Questionnaire or contact Kevin Cauley,
Director, Business Development, (215) 792-6676, Ext. 802,
kcauley@kehoelawfirm.com, securities@kehoelawfirm.com, to discuss
the securities investigation or potential legal claims.
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pilgrim's Pride.
According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, the Pilgrim's
Pride defendants, allegedly, made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Pilgrim's Pride and
its executives had participated in an illegal antitrust conspiracy
to fix prices and rig bids from at least as early as 2012 and
continuing through at least early 2017; (2) Pilgrim's Pride
received competitive advantages, which persisted during the Class
Period, from its anticompetitive conduct; and (3) as a result, the
Pilgrim's Pride Defendants' statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects lacked a reasonable basis.
IF YOU WISH TO SERVE AS LEAD PLAINTIFF, YOU MUST MOVE THE COURT NO
LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 4, 2020. To be a member of the class action,
you do not need to take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice; or you can take no action and remain an
absent member of the class action. No class has yet been certified
in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not
represented by counsel, unless you retain an attorney. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff–side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors.
This press release may constitute attorney advertising. [GN]
PORTLAND GENERAL: Faces Hessel Suit Over Decline of Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HESSEL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, MARIA POPE, and
JAMES F. LOBDELL, Case No. 3:20-cv-01523-SI (D. Ore., Sept. 3,
2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading statements resulting to
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Portland General Electric Company
("PGE") securities between April 24, 2020, and August 24, 2020,
inclusive.
PGE announced after the market closed, that it had incurred losses
of $127 million as of August 24, 2020. PGE further stated that "PGE
personnel entered into a number of energy trades during 2020, with
increasing volume accumulating late in the second quarter and into
the third quarter, resulting in significant exposure to the
Company." In addition, PGE announced that it had formed a Special
Committee "to review the energy trading that led to the losses and
the Company's procedures and controls related to the trading."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.51, or nearly 8%,
to close at $38.45 per share on August 24, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
According to the complaint, the 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that PGE lacked effective internal controls over its
energy trading practices; (2) that PGE personnel had entered energy
trades during 2020, with increasing volume accumulating late in the
second quarter and into the third quarter, that created significant
negative financial exposure for PGE; (3) that, as a result, the
Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.
Portland General Electric Company is an electric utility that
engages in the generation, transmission, distribution, and retail
sale of electricity in the state of Oregon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Ratliff, Esq.
RANSOM, GILBERTSON, MARTIN & RATLIFF, LLP
8401 NE Halsey Street Suite 208
Portland, OR 97220
Telephone: (503) 226-3664
Facsimile: (503) 243-6716
E-mail: rgmr1500@gmail.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
POWER SOLUTIONS: Treadwell Class Action Remains Stayed
------------------------------------------------------
Power Solutions 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 class action suit initiated by
Jerome Treadwell is still stayed, pending the Illinois Appellate
Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare.
In October 2018, a putative class-action complaint was filed
against the Company and NOVAtime Technology, Inc. (NOVAtime) in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.
In December 2018, NOVAtime removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division under
the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiff has since voluntarily
dismissed NOVAtime from the lawsuit without prejudice and filed an
amended complaint in April 2019.
The operative, amended complaint asserts violations of the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) in connection with
employees' use of the time clock to clock in and clock out using a
finger scan and seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and equitable relief.
An aggrieved party under BIPA may recover (i) $1,000 per violation
if the Company is found to have negligently violated BIPA or (ii)
$5,000 per violation if the Company is found to have intentionally
or recklessly violated BIPA plus reasonable attorneys' fees.
In May 2019, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's amended complaint. In December 2019, the court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss.
In January 2020, the Company moved for reconsideration of the
court's order denying the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative,
to stay the case pending the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in
McDonald v. Symphony Healthcare on a legal question that would be
potentially dispositive in this matter.
In February 2020, the court denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration, but required the parties to submit additional
briefing on the Company's motion to stay. In April 2020, the Court
granted the Company's motion to stay and stayed the case pending
the Illinois Appellate Court's ruling in McDonald v. Symphony
Healthcare.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
Power Solutions said, "At this time, the Company is unable to
predict the outcome of this matter or meaningfully quantify how the
final resolution of this matter may impact its results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Power Solutions International, Inc. designs, engineers,
manufactures, markets, and sells engines and power systems
primarily in North America, the Pacific Rim, and Europe. Power
Solutions International, Inc. was founded in 1985 and is
headquartered in Wood Dale, Illinois.
PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA: Curtis Securities Suit Balks at Sanofi Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARCY CURTIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PRINCIPIA BIOPHARMA INC., DAN BECKER, PATRICK MACHADO,
ALAN B. COLOWICK, SIMEON GEORGE, SHAWN TOMASELLO, MARTIN BABLER,
SHAO-LEE LIN, SANOFI, and KORTEX ACQUISITION CORP., Case No.
1:20-cv-01164-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 1, 2020), alleges violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stemming from a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which Principia will be acquired by Sanofi
and Kortex.
The Proposed Transaction provides that all of Principia's
outstanding common stock will be purchased by Sanofi for $100.00
per share in cash.
The Plaintiff owns Principia common stock.
According to the complaint, the Solicitation Statement filed by
Principia's Board of Directors with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 28, 2020, has omitted material
information regarding Principia's financial projections and the
analyses performed by Principia's financial advisors in connection
with the Proposed Transaction. The omissions in the Solicitation
Statement are material to shareholders in deciding whether to
tender their shares in connection with Proposed Transaction, the
Plaintiff claims.
Principia Biopharma, Inc., is a late-stage biopharmaceutical
company dedicated to bringing transformative therapies to patients
with significant unmet medical needs in immune-mediated diseases.
Defendant Martin Babler served as the President, Chief Executive
Officer, and a director of the Company. Defendants Becker, Machado,
George, Tomasello and Shao-Lee Lin are directors of the Company.
Defendant Alan B. Colowick is the Chairman of the Board.
Sanofi is a French societe aninyme and a party to the Merger
Agreement. Kortex Acquisition Corp. is wholly-owned subsidiary of
Sanofi, and a party to the Merger Agreement.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
300 Delaware Ave., Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 295-5310
Fax: (302) 654-7530
Emails: bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and –
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
RM LAW, P.C.
1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300
Berwyn, PA 19312
Tel: (484) 324-6800
Fax: (484) 631-1305
Email: rm@maniskas.com
PROGENITY INC: Robbins Geller Rudman Announces Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that it filed a class
action seeking to represent purchasers of Progenity, Inc.
(NASDAQ:PROG) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement, as amended (the "Registration Statement"),
issued in connection with Progenity's June 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO"). This action was filed in the Southern District of
California and is captioned Soe v. Progenity, Inc.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Progenity common stock pursuant to the June
2020 IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Progenity
class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
class members in directing the Progenity class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Progenity class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the Progenity class action lawsuit
is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff in the Progenity class action lawsuit, you
must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish
to discuss the Progenity class action lawsuit or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Brian E. Cochran of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com.
You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-progenity-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html.
The Progenity class action lawsuit charges Progenity, certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Progenity specializes in
developing and commercializing molecular testing products and
precision medicine applications. The Company provides in vitro
molecular tests designed to assist parents in making informed
decisions related to family planning, pregnancy, and complex
disease diagnosis.
On or about June 22, 2020, defendants conducted Progenity's IPO. In
the IPO, defendants sold over 6.6 million shares of Progenity
common stock to the investing public at a price of $15 per share,
generating over $100 million in gross offering proceeds.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO
was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue
statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to
make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to
make the necessary disclosures required under the rules and
regulations governing its preparation. Specifically, the
Registration Statement failed to disclose, inter alia, the
following adverse facts that existed at the time of the IPO,
rendering numerous statements provided therein materially false and
misleading: (i) that Progenity had overbilled government payors by
$10.3 million in 2019 and early 2020 and, thus, had materially
overstated its revenues, earnings and cash flows from operations
for the historical financial periods provided in the Registration
Statement; (ii) that Progenity would need to refund this
overpayment in the second quarter of 2020 (the same quarter in
which the IPO was conducted), adversely impacting its quarterly
results; and (iii) that Progenity was suffering from accelerating
negative trends in the second quarter of 2020 with respect to the
Company's testing volumes, revenues and product pricing.
Shortly after the IPO, the price of Progenity stock suffered
significant price declines. By August 14, 2020, Progenity stock
closed at just $7.71 per share – nearly 50% below the $15 per
share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two
months previously.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200
lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven
consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked
the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law
firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and
total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys
have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of
billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing
financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also
specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping
to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins
Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts,
professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the
industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more
information.
https://www.linkedin.com/company/rgrdlaw
https://twitter.com/rgrdlaw
https://www.facebook.com/rgrdlaw
Brian E. Cochran
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Tel No: 800-449-4900
E-mail: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
PROSHARES ULTRA: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil. Investors have until the
deadline 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 this class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (NYSEArca: UCO)
Class Period: March 6, 2020 – April 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
Shareholders with $1,000,000 in losses or more are encouraged to
contact the firm.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, UCO 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
extraordinary market volatility caused by decreased demand for oil
from the coronavirus pandemic and increased oil supply and
diminished oil prices caused by the Russia/Saudi oil price war; (2)
that a massive influx of investor capital into the Fund, totaling
hundreds of millions of dollars, in a matter of days, which
increased Fund inefficiencies, heightened illiquidity in the 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); and (3) that 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; (4) 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.
To be a member of this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-9 14-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
PROTEIN SOLUTIONS: 2-Mile Radius Residents Can Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Debby Woodin, writing for The Joplin Globe, reports that residents
within a 2-mile radius of the Protein Solutions rendering plant in
southeast Joplin are eligible to file a claim toward a proposed
$975,000 settlement of a class action lawsuit over odors emitted by
the operation.
Protein Solutions, located at 3800 E. 32nd St., makes chicken
additives for pet food. It has been the subject of a number of odor
complaints made to city and state authorities, and of subsequent
investigations over several years.
Currently the plant is operating under a letter of warning issued
by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources because of the
odors, said Tanya Turner, environment supervisor for the air and
land unit at the DNR's southwest regional office in Springfield.
Another nearby manufacturer, Hampshire Pet Products, also is
operating under a letter of warning.
Though the DNR is working with the two companies as they make
modifications to their odor control technologies and equipment to
try to address the issue, the DNR is not part of the lawsuit,
Turner said.
The lawsuit was filed in March 2019 in Jasper County Circuit Court.
Named plaintiffs are Gary Colson, John Ochoa and Janet Ochoa, all
of whom live near the Protein Solutions plant.
The suit states the plant has emitted noxious odors for at least 10
years and that the company does not operate it properly to collect,
capture and destroy the odors so that it is not a nuisance to other
properties.
The lawsuit states more than 100 odor complaints were filed with
the city and state by nearby residents in recent years. About 1,000
residents signed a petition that was submitted to the city of
Joplin in March 2018 seeking better monitoring of the plant's
emissions.
The company has been cited by the Missouri DNR at least three
times, the lawsuit states
"Protein Solutions is improving one of the odor technologies and is
looking at another," said Turner, the DNR representative. Heartland
also is looking at its processes with the intent to improve odor
emissions, she said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in the petition that about 60
other residents have come forward to join the lawsuit and they
believe there are many others who will come forward.
Those who are eligible to be added are those who have already
submitted claim forms as well as renters and residential property
owners who have lived within the 2-mile radius since March 15,
2014. New claims must be filed by Oct. 5.
Attorneys representing Protein Solutions did not return a telephone
message seeking comment on behalf of the company. There was no
answer at the plant's telephone.
The judge granted the preliminary settlement approval on Aug. 13,
though there will have to be final approval by the court before any
settlement funds can be distributed.
Residents who want more information or claim forms can find that
online at
https://www.ldclassaction.com/class-action/protein-solutions-llc-settlement.
[GN]
PTKW INC: Mayhew Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mayhew, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
PTKW, Inc.; Gregg Pancero, Jr.; Gregg Pancero, Sr.; Doe Corporation
1-10; John Doe 1-10, Case No. 1:20-cv-00690-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Sept.
3, 2020), arises from the Defendants' failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and other delivery drivers with minimum and overtime
wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio
Constitution, and the Ohio Minimum Wage Fairness Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants also failed to
adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their delivery-related
expenses, thereby, failing to pay delivery drivers the legally
mandated minimum wages for all hours worked. By not paying
Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective proper overtime wages for time
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendants have
willfully violated the FLSA.
The Plaintiff has worked at the Defendant' LaRosa's store in
Kenwood, Ohio, as delivery driver since 2009.
The Defendants operate five LaRosa's Pizza locations in the
Cincinnati area in Ohio.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
- and -
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Louise M. Roselle, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencerm, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515
Cincinnati, OH 45236
Telephone: (513) 715-8711
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com
pkrzeski@billerkimble.com
lroselle@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
PURE FISHING: Chung Files Fraud Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pure Fishing, Inc.
The case is styled as David Chung, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Pure Fishing, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-03983 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Fraud or
Truth-In-Lending.
Pure Fishing, Inc. designs and manufactures fishing tackle
equipment and related products. The Company provides fishing
tackles, lures, rods, reels, combos, and down riggers under various
brands to anglers. Pure Fishing serves customers worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer I. Sheehan, Esq.
Sheehan & Associates, P.C.
505 Northern Boulevard, Suite 311
Great Neck, NY 11021
Tel: (516) 303-0552
Fax: (516) 234-7800
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
QALIPU FIRST NATION: Class Action Certified
-------------------------------------------
benzinga.com reports that a class action with respect to the Qalipu
First Nation enrollment process has now been certified by the
Federal Court.
The lawsuit seeks to challenge the Supplemental Agreement for the
Recognition of the Qalipu Mi'kmaq Band (the "2013 Supplemental
Agreement") and also seek money and other benefits.
The Class includes all individuals whose applications for Qalipu
Band membership were rejected in accordance with the 2013
Supplemental Agreement.
Class members are automatically included in the class action unless
they take steps to exclude themselves (opt out) by January 14,
2021. If Class members want to stay in the class action, they do
not need to do anything.
If Class members opt out, they will not be part of the lawsuit and
will not be able to share in any money or any other benefit
obtained for the class if the lawsuit is successful. If Class
members opt out, they will retain their right to sue the Attorney
General of Canada and the Federation of Newfoundland Indians as
individuals regarding the issues in this case. [GN]
RAMEN MEIJIN: Martinez Seeks to Recover Minimum & Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA GLORIA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. RAMEN MEIJIN INC. (D/B/A MEIJIN RAMEN), DEE
JING, INC. (D/B/A KUU RAMEN), AROY DEE, and JOHN DOE, Case No.
1:20-cv-07214 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
The lawsuit is also brought for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law,
and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York
Commissioner of Labor.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. The Defendants also
failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for
any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. The
Defendants also repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a
timely basis.
The Plaintiff was employed as a dishwasher at the Defendants'
restaurants in New York City from 2014 until January 2020.
The Defendants own, operate, or control two Japanese Restaurants in
New York City under the name Meijin Ramen and Kuu Ramen.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: michael@faillacelaw.com
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Still Defends 2 Antitrust Class Action Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------------
RE/MAX 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 itself against
all claims in two putative class action suits over alleged
violations of federal antitrust law.
In March and April of 2019, three putative class action complaints
were filed against National Association of Realtors ("NAR"),
Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc, RE/MAX
Holdings, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc.
The first was filed on March 6, 2019, by plaintiff Christopher
Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois.
The second was filed on April 15, 2019, by plaintiff Sawbill
Strategies, Inc., also in the Northern District of Illinois. These
two actions have now been consolidated.
A third action was filed by plaintiffs Joshua Sitzer and four other
individual plaintiffs in the Western District of Missouri.
The complaints (collectively "Moehrl/Sitzer suits") make
substantially similar allegations and seek substantially similar
relief. The plaintiffs allege that a NAR rule requires brokers to
make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer broker compensation
when listing a property, resulting in inflated costs to sellers in
violation of federal antitrust law.
They further allege that certain defendants use their agreements
with franchisees to require adherence to the NAR rule in violation
of federal antitrust law. Amended complaints add allegations
regarding buyer steering and non-disclosure of buyer-broker
compensation to the buyer. Additionally, plaintiffs in the action
filed by Sitzer et al allege violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act.
By agreement, RE/MAX, LLC was substituted for RE/MAX Holdings as
defendant in the actions.
Among other requested relief, plaintiffs seek damages against the
defendants and an injunction enjoining defendants from requiring
sellers to pay the buyer broker. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against all of these claims.
The Company may become involved in litigation or other legal
proceedings concerning the same or similar allegations to those
made in the Moehrl/Sitzer suits.
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
RED ROBIN: Settlement Underway in Vigueras & Vasquez Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, 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 in the process of
finalizing a settlement agreement resolving all claims and the
costs in Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc. and
Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. suits.
On July 14, 2017, a current hourly employee filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Company failed to provide required meal
breaks and rest periods and failed to reimburse business expenses,
among other claims.
The case is styled Manuel Vigueras v. Red Robin International, Inc.
and is currently pending before the United States District Court in
Santa Ana, California.
In a related action, on September 21, 2017, a companion case,
styled Genny Vasquez v. Red Robin International, Inc. was filed and
is currently pending in California Superior Court in Santa Ana,
California and involves claims under the California Private
Attorneys' General Act that partially overlap the claims made in
the Vigueras matter.
In the first quarter of 2020, the Company reached a tentative
settlement agreement resolving all claims and the cost of class
administration in both cases for an aggregate $8.5 million.
The Company is in the process of finalizing the settlement
agreement, which will then be submitted to the court for approval.
Court approval is required before any settlement agreement between
the parties becomes final.
An additional $4.5 million was accrued to reach the $8.5 million
settlement amount during the Company's first fiscal quarter of
2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greenwood Village, Colorado-based Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc.,
develops, operates, and franchises full-service restaurants with
556 locations in North America. As of December 31, 2017, the
Company operated 480 Company-owned restaurants located in 44 states
and two Canadian provinces. The Company also had 86 franchised
full-service restaurants in 15 states as of December 31, 2017.
REXAHN PHARMACEUTICALS: Defending Suits Over Ocuphire Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Rexahn 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 is a defendant in
several putative stockholder class action suits related to its
merger with Razor Merger Sub, Inc. and Ocuphire Pharma, Inc.
On June 17, 2020, Rexahn's Board of Directors caused Rexahn to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Razor Merger Sub,
Inc. and Ocuphire Pharma, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, among other things: (i) Merger Sub will merge with and
into Ocuphire, with Ocuphire continuing as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Rexahn; and (ii) each share of Ocuphire common stock
will be converted into the right to receive shares of Rexahn common
stock such that former Ocuphire shareholders will own approximately
85.7% of the combined company and Rexahn's shareholders will own
approximately 14.3%.
On July 31, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware styled Stahlman v.
Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2020-0639.
Additionally, on August 3, 2020, a putative stockholder class
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware styled Thompson v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01036-UNA (D. Del).
On August 7, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York styled Manes v. Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-06227 (S.D.N.Y.) (together with the Stahlman and Thompson
actions, the Stockholder Actions).
The Stockholder Actions assert claims against the Company and
members of the Company’s board of directors (the Individual
Defendants).
The Stahlman and Manes complaints allege that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's
stockholders. The Thompson and Manes complaints allege that the
Company and the Individual Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the 'Exchange Act'),
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose in
the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that the Company filed with
the SEC on July 6, 2020 (File No. 333-239702) (the 'Registration
Statement') certain information regarding, among other things,
financial projections for the Company and Ocuphire, the valuation
analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Oppenheimer
& Co., Inc., in support of its fairness opinion and the process
leading to the execution of the Merger Agreement.
The Thompson and Manes complaints also allege that the Individual
Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as control
persons who had the ability to prevent the Proxy Statement from
being false and misleading.
The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing consummation of the Merger, an award of damages, and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.
Additionally, on August 6, 2020, another party sent a letter to the
Company's counsel demanding that the Company and the Individual
Defendants amend the Registration Statement to provide additional
disclosures that the party alleges were improperly omitted from the
Registration Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, including certain information regarding financial
data and the background and process leading to the execution of the
Merger Agreement (the Demand Letter).
The Company intends to defend against the Stockholder Actions and
the Demand Letter, however it is reasonably possible that a loss
may be incurred. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate
the potential loss or range of losses.
Rexahn Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company. The
Company develops signal inhibitor therapies for cancer, and
treatments for central nervous system diseases. The company is
based Rockville, Maryland.
RISEANDSHINE CORP: Slade Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------------
Riseandshine Corporation is facing a class action lawsuit filed
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled
as Linda Slade, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Riseandshine
Corporation doing business as: Rise Brewing, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06889 (S.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020).
Riseandshine Corporation (trade name Rise Brewing Co) is in the
Instant Coffee business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
Shaked Law Group, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Tel: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Bodin Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
SAExploration 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
putative class action suit initiated by John Bodin.
On August 18, 2019, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the company and certain former executive
officers named therein in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas captioned John Bodin v. SAExploration Holdings,
Inc., et al. Case No. 4:19–cv–03089.
Three other purported stockholders moved for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of their counsel as lead counsel on October
2, 2019.
An order was entered on February 7, 2020, appointing Amrit Kumar
and Tony Tep as co–lead plaintiffs (the "Class Action
Plaintiffs") and approving their counsel as co–lead counsel.
Pursuant to an agreed scheduling stipulation and order, the Class
Action Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on July 15, 2020
against the company and certain of its former and current executive
officers and directors named therein (the "Class Action
Defendants").
The Class Action Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
publicly traded securities from March 15, 2016 through February 7,
2020 (the "Covered Period"). The amended complaint generally
alleges that the Class Action Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b–5 by making false
and misleading statements in the company's periodic reports filed
with the SEC during the Covered Period.
The complaint requests damages, including interest, and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees.
Pursuant to an agreed scheduling stipulation and order, the Class
Action Defendants must answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint by September 17, 2020, with
responsive briefing to be completed by January 11, 2021.
SAExploration Holdings, Inc., incorporated on February 2, 2011, is
an internationally focused oilfield services company. The Company
offers a range of seismic data acquisition and logistical support
services in Alaska, Canada, South America and Southeast Asia to
customers in the oil and natural gas industry. The company is based
in Houston, Texas.
SALONCEUTICALS INC: Blinds Can't Access Web Site, Paguada Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DILENIA PAGUADA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SALONCEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-07162 (S.D.N.Y.,
Sept. 2, 2020), arises from the Defendant's failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Web site to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people.
The lawsuit alleges violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's Web site,
http://www.regenpure.com/,is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, the Plaintiff seeks a
permanent injunction to cause a change in its corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that the Web site will become and
remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Astoria, New York. She is a blind,
visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a
protected class of individuals under the ADA.
Salonceuticals, Inc., is a hair products manufacturing company that
owns and operates the said Web site.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mars Khaimov, Esq.
MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (929) 324-0717
E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com
SANDERSON FARMS: Bid to Nix Maryland Putative Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the
consolidated putative class action suit filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland remains pending.
On August 30, 2019, Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its Foods and
Processing Divisions, as well as seventeen other poultry producers
and their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and Webber, Meng, Sahl and
Company, Inc. (WMS), were named in a putative class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Three other nearly identical putative class action complaints, each
seeking to represent the same putative class, also were filed. The
complaints, brought on behalf of non-supervisory production and
maintenance employees at broiler chicken processing plants, alleged
that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix and
depress the compensation paid to them, including hourly wages and
compensation benefits, from January 1, 2009 to the present.
The plaintiffs claim that broiler producers shared competitively
sensitive wage and benefits compensation information in three ways:
(1) attending in-person meetings in Destin, Florida; (2) receiving
Agri Stats reports, as well as surveys taken and published by WMS;
and (3) directly exchanging wage and benefits information with
plant managers at other defendant broiler producers. Plaintiffs
allege that this conduct violated the Sherman Antitrust Act.
On November 12, 2019, the Court ordered that the four putative
class action complaints would be consolidated for all pretrial
purposes. The Court ordered plaintiffs to file their consolidated
complaint on or before November 14, 2019.
Defendant' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint were filed
on November 22, 2019. Briefing was scheduled to be completed on or
before February 28, 2020; however, after the defendants filed their
motions to dismiss, on November 26, 2019, plaintiffs notified
defendants that they intended to file an amended consolidated
complaint.
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on December 20,
2019. Plaintiffs name as defendants Sanderson Farms, Inc. and its
Foods and Processing Divisions, as well as ten other broiler
chicken producers and their affiliates; three turkey producers and
their affiliates; Agri Stats, Inc.; and WMS.
Plaintiffs bring their amended consolidated complaint on behalf of
employees at broiler chicken and turkey processing plants and
allege that the defendants unlawfully conspired by agreeing to fix
and depress the compensation paid to them.
On January 9, 2020 and January 27, 2020, the court approved the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of two of the three nearly
identical putative class action lawsuits. On March 12, 2020, the
Court approved the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the
third nearly identical putative class action lawsuit.
On March 2, 2020, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. The Company also filed an individual motion
to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against the Company. Plaintiffs’
oppositions were originally due on April 24, 2020 and defendants'
replies were due on May 21, 2020.
However, on March 20, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Second
Amended Standing Order 2020-02, extending all filing deadlines set
to fall between March 16, 2020 and April 24, 2020 by 42 days. On
April 10, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order
2020-07, extending all filing deadlines set to fall between March
16, 2020 and June 5, 2020 by 84 days.
On May 22, 2020, the District of Maryland issued Standing Order
2020-11, which affirmed the prior Order's 84-day extension, but did
not extend deadlines further.
Pursuant to Standing Order 2020-07, plaintiffs' filed their omnibus
opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss on July 17, 2020.
Defendants filed replies on August 13, 2020. The motion is fully
briefed and awaiting the Court's decision. No discovery has taken
place to date.
Sanderson said, "We intend to defend this case vigorously; however,
the Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the
plaintiffs were to prevail, the Company could be liable for
damages, which could have a material, adverse effect on our
financial position and results of operations."
Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.
SANDERSON FARMS: California Consumer Class Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanderson Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consumer
class action suit in California.
On October 11, 2019, three named plaintiffs, Daniel Lentz, Pam La
Fosse, and Marybeth Norman filed, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, a nationwide class
action against the Company on behalf of a putative class of all
individuals and businesses throughout the United States who
purchased one or more of the Company's chicken products in the
prior four years.
The lawsuit alleges that the named plaintiffs and other class
members purchased the Company's chicken products based on
misleading representations in the Company's advertising.
Specifically, the plaintiffs in this case allege that the Company's
advertising (including, but not limited to, on its website,
television commercials, radio advertisements, social media, print
magazines, billboards, and trucks) misleads consumers into
believing that (i) the Company's chickens were not given
antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals, (ii) the chickens were raised
in a "natural" environment, (iii) there is no evidence that the use
of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals in poultry contributes to
the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and (iv) the
Company's chicken products do not contain antibiotic or
pharmaceutical residues.
Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Company "routinely" feeds
antibiotics and pharmaceuticals to its chickens, (ii) the Company
raises its chickens indoors in "unnatural" indoor conditions
amounting to "intensive confinement" and without natural light
(iii) there is "extensive" reliable evidence that the use of
antibiotics in poultry contributes to antibiotic-resistant
bacteria, and (iv) the Company's chickens have been found to
contain antibiotic and pharmaceutical residue.
The original Complaint asserted five causes of action under
California and North Carolina law.
The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief directing the Company to
correct its practices and to comply with consumer protection laws
nationwide. The plaintiffs also sought monetary, compensatory,
statutory, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' and experts'
fees, costs, and expenses.
On December 20, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On
February 10, 2020, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part,
denied it in part, and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the
Complaint.
On March 23, 2020, two of the three original plaintiffs (Pam La
Fosse and Marybeth Norman) filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint in which they were joined by five additional named
plaintiffs. The core allegations and theories set forth in the
First Amended Complaint are the same as in the original complaint.
The First Amended Complaint asserts one cause of action under
federal law and sixteen causes of action under the laws of various
states. The plaintiffs again seek injunctive relief directing the
Company to correct its practices and to comply with consumer
protection laws nationwide, as well as monetary, compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages and attorneys' and experts' fees,
costs and expenses.
On May 6, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint, which the Court granted on July 2, 2020 with
leave to amend.
On July 23, 2020, Plaintiffs Pam La Fosse and Sharon Manier filed a
Second Amended Complaint on behalf of a putative class of consumers
who purchased the Company's chicken in California in the prior four
years.
Like the earlier iterations of the complaint, the Second Amended
Complaint alleges that the remaining plaintiffs and other class
members purchased the Company's chicken products based on
misleading representations in the Company's advertising, including
for the reasons set forth in the prior complaints.
On August 6, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in part, requesting dismissal of plaintiffs' new implied
warranty of merchantability claim. On August 20, 2020, plaintiffs
voluntarily agreed to withdraw their new implied warranty claim. No
discovery has taken place to date.
We intend to defend these cases vigorously; however, the Company
cannot predict the outcome of these actions. If the plaintiffs were
to prevail, the Company could be liable for damages, which could
have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and
results of operations.
Sanderson Farms, Inc., an integrated poultry processing company,
produces, processes, markets, and distributes fresh, frozen, and
prepared chicken products in the United States. Sanderson Farms,
Inc. was founded in 1947 and is headquartered in Laurel,
Mississippi.
SERVISFIRST BANK: Fla. Fed. Ct. Dismisses PPP Agent Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that in a national bellwether case, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Florida
dismissed a putative class action seeking the payment of "agent
fees" for Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans under the federal
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.
The case, Sport & Wheat CPA, PA v. ServisFirst Bank, Inc., et al.,
No. 20-cv-05425 (N.D. Fla. 2020), is the first among at least 50
similar cases to reach a dispositive decision. These cases all
raise the same central question: does the CARES Act entitle agents
to any of the fees paid by the federal government to lenders who
were tasked with administering hundreds of billions of dollars of
loans under the PPP, where the agents assisted the borrowers in
obtaining the loans but had no agreements with the lenders
entitling them to payment? Here, the court concluded it does not.
For background on this category of class action litigation more
generally, please see our earlier alerts Developments in Class
Action Litigation Surrounding the Paycheck Protection Program and
COVID-19 Payment Protection Program: Lender Guidelines Subject to
Litigation Risks.
Importantly, in this case, the lead plaintiff agent did not allege
that it or the borrowers had contractual agreements with the
defendant banks concerning the payment of agent fees. Instead, it
asserted four classwide claims for unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract, conversion, and declaratory relief. The first two
theories were based on an argument that the parties had reached an
implied agreement on the payment of agent fees, and that the class
of agents was entitled recover the monetary benefit conferred on
the defendant banks when it helped the borrowers obtain PPP loans.
The second two theories rested on a legal interpretation of the
CARES Act that the PPP and its implementing regulation required
lenders to pay the agent fees regardless of whether there was an
agreement among the parties to do so.
The court's analysis centered on this question of law – whether,
absent any agreement with the agents, defendant banks are required
to pay agent fees under the text of the CARES Act or its
implementing regulations. The court concluded that nothing in the
CARES Act or its implementing regulations required such payments,
they only established restraints on the collection of agent fees.
As a result, the court reasoned, the CARES Act does not require
lenders to pay agent fees or create a private right of action for
payment absent an express agreement among the parties.
Based on this statutory interpretation, the court dismissed
plaintiff's conversion claim because plaintiff could not
demonstrate that it had a right to the property in question, the
agent fees. Similarly, the court reasoned that the plaintiff's
unjust enrichment claim failed because it did not show a benefit
that was conferred on the defendants, only the borrowers. And, even
if an indirect benefit was conferred on the defendants, the court
determined that this was insufficient to sustain claims for unjust
enrichment or implied contract against the defendants. For these
reasons, the court dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
Sport & Wheat may be the first of these PPP agent fee cases to be
decided on its merits, but it certainly will not be the last.
Dozens of other class action cases against PPP lenders are still in
their early stages, and more filings are expected over the coming
months. A motion to transfer these cases into a single MDL
proceeding was denied by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation last week. See In re Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
Agent Fees Litigation, MDL No. 2950 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 5, 2020). As a
result, these cases will proceed on individual bases, and it is too
early to rule out whether some will survive the motion to dismiss
stage. For more information on that ruling, please see our earlier
alert Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Refuses to
Consolidate Class Action Litigation Concerning Paycheck Protection
Program. [GN]
SIERRA INCOME: Anderson Putative Class Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Sierra Income Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2020, that a New York state court has approved a
settlement and dismissed the purported class action suit entitled,
Roger Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al.
On August 4, 2020, the court approved a settlement and dismissed a
purported class action (the Anderson Action) pending in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, captioned Roger
Anderson et al. v. Stephen R. Byers et al., Index No. 652006/2019.
Named as defendants were Stephen R. Byers, Oliver T. Kane, Valerie
Lancaster-Beal, Brook Taube, Seth Taube, the Company, and Sierra
Management, Inc. (collectively, the Defendants).
The complaint alleged that the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of Sierra Income Corporation in connection
with the proposed mergers of Medley Capital Corporation (MCC) with
and into the Company and Medley Management Inc. (MDLY) with and
into Sierra Management, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the
Company. Compensatory damages in unspecified amounts were sought.
The defendants vigorously denied any wrongdoing or liability with
respect to the facts and claims which were asserted, or which could
have been asserted, in the Anderson Action.
None of the Defendants paid any consideration to the plaintiffs in
connection with the dismissal.
The plaintiff's attorneys intend to file a motion seeking an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses in an unspecified amount.
The Company intends to oppose plaintiff’s attorneys motion for
fees and expenses.
Sierra Income Corporation operates as an investment company. The
Company invests in automotive, insurance, real estate,
construction, energy, and other retail sectors. Sierra Income
serves customers in the United States. The company is based in New
York, New York.
SOUTH AFRICA: Foreign Nationals File Suit v. Dept. of Home Affairs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Maverick reports that in a desperate fight to stay with their
kids, three single parents faced with having to leave South Africa
immediately without their children, have filed a class action suit
against Department of Home Affairs in the Cape High Court.
In court papers the parents, represented by immigration attorney
Gary Eisenberg, described how they are forced to stay in marriages
characterised by verbal abuse, drug addiction and abandonment to
remain with their children as South Africa's immigration laws make
no provision for their situation.
The Department has indicated that it will oppose the legal action.
The Immigration Act does not provide a visa for the purpose of
parenting South African children by foreign nationals once a
spousal relationship breaks down. As a result foreigners must leave
the country regardless of whether they are the primary caregiver of
the children.
The court has been asked to declare these parts of the law
unconstitutional and order Parliament to remedy the defects and
also for an order that will allow for the three parents to stay in
the country.
The names of the applicants are known but withheld to protect the
identities of their children.
One of the applicants, a 45-year old German woman, from Kommetjie
said she has two sons, aged 10 and 11, who live with her.
She said her husband became aggressive and abusive. "Things have
deteriorated to such an extent that the children have no desire to
see [him] . . . . He is an absentee father and I am, in effect, a
single mother."
She said while her husband provides minimal financial support she
cannot get a divorce as she fears she will be forced to leave the
country without her children who are South African citizens.
Her visa will expire in November.
"I should be leaving South Africa immediately . . . it would be
tantamount to abandoning my children."
She said while she applied for permanent residence her application
will likely not be finalised before 2023.
"I am at a loss for what to do," she added. "It is [the children]
who will suffer the most."
Another applicant, a 46-year old French citizen, has separated from
his wife after she became addicted to tik and alcohol and had
abandoned him and their two sons.
He is currently in South Africa on a visitors visa and is not
allowed to work.
"I can never forgive her for her final abandonment of our two minor
children, a trauma that will take them a long time to resolve. I
cannot again leave them alone . . . I am their father," he said.
The third applicant, a 30-year old boxing coach from Zimbabwe was
declared "undesirable" in South Africa and has been banned from
returning until 2024.
He has a two year old son and was paying for the flat where the boy
was living with his mother, paid maintenance and saw him every
day.
In April 2019 he was apprehended at the airport and in terms of a
new directive he was declared undesirable for "overstaying" and
deported. He can only return to South Africa legally in April
2024.
"I was forced by the policewoman and her superior, and by Passport
Control officials, to buy a one-way air ticket to Zimbabwe. I was
given no opportunity to make representations . . . if I did not
leave that day, I would be incarcerated and I preferred to leave
rather than to sit in jail."
He admits that he returned to South Africa later in 2019 but did
not pass "through passport control."
"This was the only way I could continue to provide for [my son] and
remain part of his life."
He has also requested the court that this new directive, be
declared invalid and set aside as it denies people access to a
administrative action if they wish to dispute the finding that they
are undesirable.
No date has yet been set for the hearing. DM168 [GN]
SPARKLES CAR: Faces Martinez Wage and Hour Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE MARTINEZ and CARLOS MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPARKLES CAR WASH & QUICK LUBE,
INC. and PIETRO OPPEDISANO AND ANNAMARIA OPPEDISANO, as
individuals, Case No. 1:20-cv-04147 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 3, 2020),
seeks to recover damages for violations of state and federal wage
and hour laws arising out of the Plaintiffs' employment with the
Defendants.
According to the complaint, the Defendants did not pay the
Plaintiffs time and a half for hours worked over 40 although
Plaintiffs worked approximately 72 or more hours per week during
their employment, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions
contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law. Additionally, the Defendants failed to post notice of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by both the NYLL
and the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants with primary duties
of washing cars, cleaning, and performing other miscellaneous
duties.
Sparkles Car Wash & Quick Lube, Inc., is a car wash services
provider based in Flushing, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
SPARTAN RACE: Fruitstone Seeks Class Status for Insurance Fee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as AARON FRUITSTONE, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. SPARTAN RACE, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-20836-BB (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying the following
Classes:
Nationwide Class:
"all persons in the United States who, since February
26, 2016 to the date of preliminary approval, paid the "Racer
Insurance Fee" in connection with any race organized and
sponsored by Spartan"; and
Florida Subclass:
"all persons in the state of Florida who, since February 26,
2016 to the date of preliminary approval, paid the "Racer
Insurance Fee" in connection with any race organized and
sponsored by Spartan.
The Plaintiff contends that Spartan requires every racer to pay a
mandatory, nonrefundable $14 fee that Spartan calls a "Racer
Insurance Fee," but which is actually a secret profit center for
Spartan. Despite Spartan affirmatively telling all racers that the
$14 Racer Insurance Fee goes only a tiny portion of the mandatory
fee is ever used to pay any insurance premium and instead, Spartan
secretly keeps the remainder as profit. The Plaintiff adds that
Spartan has conducted -- and continues to conduct -- this uniform,
fraudulent profit scheme, in an identical manner towards every
proposed class member, regardless of their location, or type of
Spartan event, and even after its own lawyers warned that Spartan's
uniform profit scheme violates state consumer protection laws in
Spartan's home state of Massachusetts and Plaintiff's home state of
Florida.
The Plaintiff seeks the same exact damages, declaratory, and
injunctive relief for every class member to remedy their identical
harm.
Spartan Race is a series of obstacle races of varying distance and
difficulty ranging from 3 miles to marathon distances. They are
held in the U.S. and have been franchised to 30 countries including
Canada, South Korea, Australia and several European countries.
A copy of Mr. Fruitstone's Motion to Certify Class is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2H1wCbP at no extra
charge.[CC]
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes are:
Adam M. Moskowitz
Howard M. Bushman
Joseph M. Kaye
THE MOSKOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
Alhambra Plaza, Suite 601
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 740-1423
E-mail: adam@moskowitz-law.com
howard@moskowitz-law.com
joseph@moskowitz-law.com
- and -
Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
2325 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com
fbalint@bffb.com
- and -
Nada Djordjevic, Esq.
BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
922 Davis Street
Evanston, IL 60201
Telephone: (602) 274-1100
E-mail: ndjordjevic@bffb.com
SVT DESIGNS: Olsen Alleges Violation under ADA
----------------------------------------------
SVT Designs, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit filed pursuant
to the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is styled as
Thomas J. Olsen, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SVT Designs, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-03969 (E.D. N.Y., Aug. 26, 2020).
SVT Design Inc is a graphic design company based out of 350 San
Lorenzo Ave, Coral Gables, Florida, United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq.
Lipsky Lowe LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170-1830
Tel: (212) 764-7171
Email: chris@lipskylowe.com
SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Price Sues Over Monopoly of Consumer Telescopes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL PRICE, DEBORAH LEMAR, VINCENT CATANZARO, DAVID DICK, and
BRIAN MURPHY individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. DAR TSON SHEN; SYNTA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION OF TAIWAN;
SUZHOU SYNTA OPTICAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; SYNTA CANADA
INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES LTD.; NANTONG SCHMIDT OPTO-ELECTRICAL
TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD.; SW TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; SKYWATCHER USA;
PACIFIC TELESCOPE CORP.; CELESTRON ACQUISITION, LLC; OLIVON
MANUFACTURING CO. LTD.; OLIVON USA, LLC; and NINGBO SUNNY
ELECTRONIC CO., LTD., Case No. 5:20-cv-06216 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 2,
2020), accuses the Defendants of engaging in an unlawful conspiracy
to fix prices, to allocate the market and customers, and to
monopolize the consumer telescope market in the United States.
The Plaintiffs also accuse the Defendants of illegally overcharging
purchasers, including the Plaintiffs, hundreds of millions of
dollars for telescopes since at least 2005.
According to the complaint, Synta and Sunny together manufacture
over 80% of all consumer telescopes imported into the United
States. Instead of competing, Synta and Sunny agreed which products
their companies will produce and what prices to charge for such
products. They have used their unlawful cooperation and dominance
over telescope supply to enable their subsidiaries to take over the
United States distribution market.
In addition to colluding on pricing, the Defendants and their
Co-Conspirators operated their businesses as a conglomerate for
their mutual benefit. For example, when the Federal Trade
Commission blocked Celestron from acquiring its competitor Meade
Instrument Corp., Celestron made a deal for which it agreed to help
Ningbo Sunny acquire Meade. In exchange, Ningbo Sunny lied to the
FTC about Celestron's involvement, provided Celestron and Synta
access to Meade's intellectual property and manufacturing
techniques, and ensured that Meade no longer competed against
Celestron. At the same time, Ningbo Sunny funneled its customers'
trade secrets to Celestron and Synta to help Celestron adjust its
pricing and marketing strategies.
The Defendants conspired with their Co-Conspirators to fix the
prices of telescopes, to allocate the manufacturing and sales of
telescopes, to unlawfully acquire assets, and to dominate and
monopolize telescope supply and distribution, according to the
complaint. The anticompetitive acts include: (i) fixing the prices
of telescopes and dividing the market; (ii) helping Ningbo Sunny
acquire and operate Celestron's horizontal competitor, Meade; (iii)
obtaining and sharing nonpublic information about Meade's
intellectual property, business plans, and product pricing; and
(iv) obtaining and sharing non-public, sensitive information about
its competitors' business, including intellectual property,
business plans, and product pricing with their Co-Conspirators; and
(v) aiding and abetting their Co-Conspirators' coordinated action
to maintain power.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' concealment of their
conspiracy from consumers ended no earlier than September 2019,
when documents were unsealed in an antitrust proceeding brought by
Optronic Technologies, Inc., in which the Defendants and their
Co-Conspirators were held liable for $52,000,000. As a direct
result of the Defendants' conspiracy, the Plaintiffs and the
Classes paid artificially inflated prices for consumer telescopes
during the period from and including January 1, 2005, through the
present and have, thereby, suffered antitrust injury to their
property.
The Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sold telescopes that
were sold and purchased throughout the United States during the
Class Period.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric B. Fastiff, Esq.
Lin Y. Chan, Esq.
Reilly T. Stoler, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com
lchan@lchb.com
rstoler@lchb.com
TARGET CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of ERISA Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
August 31, 2020, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit has affirmed the prior decision by the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissing the
purported Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
class action.
On July 28, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
affirmed the prior decision by the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota dismissing the purported Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action
previously filed in the Court on August 30, 2017 (the Second ERISA
Class Action).
The Second ERISA Class Action involved claims arising from
investments in Target stock by participants in or beneficiaries of
the Target Corporation 401(k) Plan and the Target Corporation
Ventures 401(k) Plan during Target's expansion of retail operations
into Canada and was previously described in Targets annual report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2020.
Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully integrated
online business. Target also offers credit to qualified applicants
through its branded proprietary credit cards. The company is based
in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
TAX DEFENSE NETWORK: Williams Files TCPA Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tax Defense Network,
LLC. The case is styled as April M. Williams, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tax Defense
Network, LLC doing business as: MoneySolver, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-00312 (N.D. Ind., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Tax Defense Network's team of licensed tax professionals help
taxpayers and small business owners resolve their IRS issues,
including, but not limited to, liens, levies, wage garnishment,
unfiled taxes, and back taxes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed O Badwan, Esq.
Sulaiman Law Group Ltd
2500 S Highland Ave Ste 200
Lombard, IL 60148
Tel: (630) 575-8181 x114
Fax: (630) 575-8188
Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com
TEXAS: Commissioner Sued Over Denial of Hepatitis C Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
DORENA COLEMAN; CURTIS JACKSON; and FEDERICO PEREZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PHIL WILSON,
Acting Executive Commissioner; VICTORIA FORD, Chief Policy and
Regulatory Officer; MAURICE MCCREARY, Chief Operating Officer; and
MICHELLE ALLETTO, Chief Program and Services Officer, in their
official capacities with the TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION, Case No. 1:20-cv-00847-RP (W.D. Tex., Aug. 13, 2020),
challenges the state of Texas's systematic and unlawful denial of
coverage for curative Hepatitis C treatment to Medicaid-enrolled
Texans suffering from Hepatitis C's insidious and life-threatening
effects.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the policies and
practices of Texas Health and Human Services Commission ("HHSC")
prohibit Medicaid coverage for medically necessary treatment of
some Medicaid beneficiaries with Hepatitis C virus ("HCV"),
including the Plaintiffs, while providing it to other similarly
situated Medicaid beneficiaries, without clinical or medical
justification.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jeff Edwards, Esq.
Scott Medlock, Esq.
Michael Singley, Esq.
David James, Esq.
EDWARDS LAW
1101 East 11th Street
Telephone: (512) 623-7727
Facsimile: (512) 623-7729
E-mail: jeff@edwards-law.com
scott@edwards-law.com
mike@edwards-law.com
david@edwards-law.com
- and -
Kevin Costello, Esq.
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR HEALTH LAW
& POLICY INNOVATION
1585 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Telephone: (617) 496-0901
E-mail: kcostello@law.harvard.edu
- and -
David C. Tolley, Esq.
Allison Lukas Turner, Esq.
Amanda Barnett, Esq.
Avery E. Borreliz, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
200 Clarendon Street, 27th Floor
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 880-4610
E-mail: david.tolley@lw.com
allison.turner@lw.com
amanda.barnett@lw.com
avery.borreliz@lw.com
TRYP TECHNOLOGIES: Chan Sues in California Over Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tryp Technologies,
Inc. The case is captioned as Cedric Chan, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tryp Technologies, Inc.,
Case No. 2:20-cv-07628-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal., Aug. 21, 2020).
The consumer credit lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case is assigned to Judge John F. Walter.
Tryp Technologies, Inc., is the first disruptive and innovative
Software as a Service (SaaS) provider of Ride-Share technology
platform with a disrupting payment system allowing users payments
to go directly to the driver.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
George Thomas Martin, III, Esq.
Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
MARTIN AND BONTRAGER APC
4605 Lankershim Boulevard, Suite 535
Toluca Lake, CA 91602
Telephone: (323) 940-1700
E-mail: tom@mblawapc.com
nick@mblawapc.com
UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Pettai Files Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unilever United
States, Inc. The case is styled as Nicole Krause-Pettai, Scott
Grimm, Steve Tabu Lanier and Christy Stevens, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Unilever
United States, Inc., a corporation and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:20-cv-01672-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Other Fraud.
Unilever United States, Inc. manufactures personal care products.
The Company offers laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances,
and body washes, as well as provides ice creams, oils, mayonnaise,
spreads, sauces, tea. Unilever United States serves customers
worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stanley D Saltzman, Esq.
Marlin and Saltzman
29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
Tel: (818) 991-8080
Fax: (818) 991-8081
Email: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
UNITED STATES: Hurley Files Prisoner Civil Rights Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States of
America. The case is styled as Michael Hurley, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United States
of America, Secretary, Department of Corrections and Attorney
General, State of Florida, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-01999-MSS-TGW (M.D. Fla., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Prisoner: Civil
Rights filed pursuant to the Prisoner Civil Rights.
The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation’s presence into the Pacific Ocean.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE: Arredondo Seeks Refund Amid COVID Crisis
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANNA ARREDONDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, Case No. 2:20-cv-07665 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 23, 2020), is brought on behalf of all persons, who paid
tuition and/or fees to attend La Verne University for an in person,
hands-on educational services and experiences for the semesters or
terms affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019, including the Winter
2020, Spring 2020, and Summer 2020 semesters, and had their course
work moved to online only learning.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to refund any
amount of the tuition or any of the mandatory fees, even though it
has implemented online only distance learning starting on March 16,
2020, after making the announcement on March 12, 2020, in response
to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendant's failure to provide the
services for which tuition and the mandatory fees were intended to
cover since March 16, 2020, is also a breach of the contracts
between the University and the Plaintiff and the members of the
Class, the Plaintiff contends.
Instead of refunding the partial refund or offering discounts or
credits for future semesters, the Defendant has shifted the burden
of Covid-19 onto its students by requiring them to pay full tuition
and full fees--without providing students with the full services,
opportunities, and experiences, the Plaintiff asserts.
The Plaintiff was an undergraduate student during the Spring 2020
semester and is enrolled for classes in the Fall 2020. She seeks
for herself and Class members protections, including injunctive and
declaratory relief, protecting Class Members for paying the full
cost of tuition and fees during the pendency of the pandemic in
light of the educational services, opportunities, and experiences
the Defendants can actually safely provide.
University of La Verne is a private university in California that
was founded in 1891. The University offers numerous major fields
for undergraduate students, as well as a number of graduate
programs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Perry L. Segal, Esq.
dba CHARON LAW, A SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP
303 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 600
Redwood City, CA 94065-1422
Telephone: (650) 542-7935
E-mail: perry.segal@charonlaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com
VALENTINO USA: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Brooks Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE BROOKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. VALENTINO U.S.A., INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case 2:20-cv-01625-KJM-DB (E.D. Cal., Aug. 13, 2020), alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.valentino.com/en-us /, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of
the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff.
Valentino U.S.A. Inc. operates men's and boy's clothing stores. The
Company's headquarters is located in New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bobby Saadian, Esq.
Thiago Coelho, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 381-9988
Facsimile: (213) 381-9989
VAXART INC: Faces Hovhannisyan Securities Suit in N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANI HOVHANNISYAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VAXART, INC., ARMISTICE CAPITAL, LLC, CEZAR
ANDREI FLOROIU, WOUTER W. LATOUR, M.D., STEVEN J. BOYD, and KEITH
MAHER, M.D., Case No. 3:20-cv-06175 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 1, 2020), is
brought against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In an attempt to inflate its stock price and enrich Armistice
Capital and the Individual Defendants, the Defendants allegedly
made materially false and misleading press releases statements
regarding the Company's potential COVID-19 vaccine development. The
truth came to light when a New York Times' article published on
July 25, 2020, refuted the Defendants' press releases statements,
which resulted to the price dropped of Vaxart stock.
As a result, the Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered
significant losses and damages.
The Plaintiff has purchased Vaxart common stock at artificially
inflated prices.
Vaxart, Inc., is a small clinical-stage biotechnology company
primarily focused on the development of oral recombinant vaccines
based on its proprietary oral vaccine platform. Cezar Andrei
Floroiu has served as a director of Vaxart since April 2020 and was
appointed as Chief Executive Officer in June 2020. Wouter W.
Latour, M.D. served as Vaxart's President and Chief Executive
Officer from February 2018 to June 2020. Steven J. Boyd and Keith
Maher, M.D. served as a director of Vaxart since October 2019.
Armistice Capital is a hedge fund, which beneficially owned
approximately 52% of the voting power of Vaxart's outstanding
shares of common stock.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: 619-233-4565
Fax: 619-233-0508
Email: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
- and –
Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq.
Rhiana L. Swartz, Esq.
SCOTT + SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP
The Helmsley Building
230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10169
Tel: 212-233-6444
Fax: 212-233-6334
Emails: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
rswartz@scott-scott.com
VELOCITY FINANCIAL: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Velocity
Financial, Inc. Investors have until the deadline 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 this class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Velocity Financial, Inc. (NYSE: VEL)
Class Period: January 2020 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: September 28, 2020
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Velocity 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
at the time of Velocity's initial public offering (the "IPO"), the
Company's non-performing loans had dramatically increased in size
from the figures provided in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus that Velocity had issued in connection with the IPO; (2)
that defendants failed to provide any information to investors
regarding the potential impact of the novel coronavirus on
Velocity's business and operations, despite the fact that the
international spread of the virus had already been confirmed at the
time of the IPO; (3) as a result, the failure to disclose the
substantial and growing proportion of the Company's loans that were
non-performing and/or on non-accrual status as of the IPO rendered
the statements contained in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus regarding the quality of the Company's loan portfolio
and underwriting practices materially misleading.
To be a member of this class action, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you
wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to 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.
Frank R. Cruz
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz
Los Angeles
Tel No: 310-9 14-5007
E-mail: fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com [GN]
VIAGOGO: Faces Class Action Over Refunds
----------------------------------------
Ticket News reports that consumers in Florida have filed a lawsuit
against Viagogo, alleging that the ticket resale marketplace
engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices with a change to
its refund policies made retroactive for events amid the
coronavirus.
The complaint alleges that the company is attempting to force
consumers to suffer losses it should be covering due to its
cash-back guarantee on events that are cancelled.
"To avoid financial losses, and potential future losses, due to the
Covid-19 pandemic, Defendant has unilaterally and unconscionably
changed its longstanding policy, including for customers who
purchased tickets while Viagogo actively promoted and promised its
Viagogo Guarantee, to instead leave its customers holding the bag,"
the lawsuit claims.
StubHub, which Viagogo purchased from former parent eBay earlier
this year for a reported $4 billion, has been targeted by similar
lawsuits, which were recently consolidated and moved to a federal
courthouse in Northern California.
In this lawsuit, the plaintiff, who resides in Hernando County,
Florida, claims that she paid $410 for tickets to see Tool on April
19. After initially postponing the tour dates with hopes of
rescheduling, the band cancelled its tour entirely in early June.
The plaintiff indicates in the claim that there was extensive
communication between her and the company between April and July,
during which time Viagogo insisted that the event was postponed and
her order could not be cancelled or refunded.
The lawsuit seeks to represent Florida residents who purchased
tickets to events on Viagogo for subsequently cancelled events who
have similarly not received a refund. [GN]
WELLS FARGO BANK: Delpapa Files Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. The case is styled as Pamela Delpapa, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-01729 (C.D. Cal., Aug. 26, 2020).
The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Consumer Credit
filed as a Civil Miscellaneous Case.
Wells Fargo & Company is an American multinational financial
services company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with
central offices throughout the United States. It is the world's
fourth-largest bank by market capitalization and the fourth largest
bank in the US by total assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears PRO SE.
WEST VIRGINIA: Certification of General Class & Subclasses Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In class action lawsuit captioned as Jonathan R., minor, by Next
Friend, Sarah DIXON, et al., v. Jim JUSTICE, in his official
capacity as the Governor of West Virginia, et al., Case No.
3:19-cv-00710 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. certifying a General Class of:
"all West Virginia foster children as well as three
subclasses":
(a) children who have physical, intellectual, cognitive,
or mental health disabilities (the ADA Subclass);
(b) children who are or will be in kinship placements, or
who were in kinship placements that unnecessarily
disrupted, for whom DHHR is required to provide
initial home safety assessments, case management and
other services, and permanency planning (the Kinship
Subclass); and
(c) children who are or will be fourteen years old and
older, who are eligible to receive age-appropriate
transition planning but are not provided the necessary
case management and services and are therefore at risk
of aging out of foster care without a proper plan to
transition successfully to adulthood (the Aging Out
Subclass); and
2. appointing their attorneys as class counsel.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class dated Sept. 2,
2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kbBCci
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq.
Allison Mahoney, Esq.
Dawn Post, Esq.
Tavi Unger, Esq.
A BETTER CHILDHOOD
355 Lexington Avenue, Floor 16
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 795-4456
Facsimile: (212) 692-0415
E-mail: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org
amahoney@abetterchildhood.org
dpost@abetterchildhood.org
tunger@abetterchildhood.org
- and -
Richard W. Walters, Esq.
J. Alexander Meade, Esq.
Brian L. Ooten, Esq.
SHAFFER & SHAFFER, PLLC
2116 Kanawha Boulevard, East
P.O. Box 3973
Charleston, WV 25339
Telephone: (304) 344-8716
Facsimile: (304) 344-1481
E-mail: rwalters@shafferlaw.net
ameade@shafferlaw.net
booten@shafferlaw.net
- and -
Lori Waller, Esq.
DISABILITY RIGHTS OF WEST VIRGINIA
1207 Quarrier Street, Suite 400
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 346-0847
Facsimile: (304) 346-0687
E-mail: lwaller@drofwv.org
WESTINGHOUSE AIR: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Straight, writing for FreightWaves, reports that a
class-action lawsuit against several railway equipment suppliers
has received final court approval. Agreement on a final settlement
of the suit between Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corp.
(Wabtec), Knorr-Bremse AG and subsidiaries and law firms Hartley
LLP and Fine Kaplan and Black was achieved in February. U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge Joy
Flowers Conti signed off on the final settlement on Aug. 26.
Lead class counsel for the $48.9 million case was from the firms
Lieff Cabraser and Fine Kaplan Black.
Known as the "no-poach" lawsuit, lead plaintiffs Stephen
Baldassano, John Brand, David Escalera, Brian Lara, and Patricia
Lonergan alleged that the railway suppliers -- which included
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation (NYSE: WAB) and its
subsidiaries including Wabtec Railway Electronics, Inc., Railroad
Controls, L.P., and Xorail Inc.; Knorr Brake Company LLC or New
York Air Brake LLC; and Faiveley Transport, S.A. or Faiveley
Transport North America Inc. -- reached an agreement not to hire
employees from the other firms without consent in an effort to
reduce wages and competition.
Hartley said class members can expect to receive a gross average
settlement of $7,100 before fees and expenses.
"The employees working for each of the railway companies were
clearly disadvantaged by their employers, whose actions reduced
their compensation potential and limited their career
opportunities," said Jason Hartley, managing partner of Hartley
LLP, in a statement. "I am proud that each class member will
recover some of the money they are rightfully owed."
More than 8,000 members are eligible for the payments, according to
the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
A website has been set up for class members at railwaynopoach.com.
Some eligible class members will receive payments while others need
to register their status to become eligible. The website has
details on who is eligible.
The case dates back to 2009 when the companies are alleged to have
entered illegal agreements to deny employment to employees of each
other without approval. The Department of Justice became aware of
the scheme when reviewing Wabtec's proposed acquisition of Faiveley
Transport in 2016. As part of the approval of the deal, DOJ
required Wabtec to divest itself of Faiveley's U.S. freight care
brakes business.
In 2018, DOJ reached agreement with Wabtec and Knorr-Bremse AG to
resolve a lawsuit alleging the "companies had for years maintained
unlawful agreements not to compete for each other's employees." The
lawsuit said similar "no-poach" agreements were in place with
Faiveley.
"The unlawful no-poach agreements challenged on Aug. 30 restrained
competition for employees and deprived rail industry workers of
important opportunities, information, and the ability to obtain
better terms of employment," said Assistant Attorney General Makan
Delrahim of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, in a
statement at the time. "The settlement will restore competition for
employees in the U.S. rail industry."
The DOJ's investigation turned up documents detailing the practice.
According to one document, a director of Knorr Brake Company wrote
to a senior executive at Wabtec's headquarters, stating "[Y]ou and
I both agreed that our practice of not targeting each other's
personnel is a prudent cause for both companies. As you so
accurately put it, ‘we compete in the market.'"
In 2011, Knorr and Faiveley reached a similar arrangement as that
between Knorr and Wabtec, DOJ found. Wabtec Passenger Transit and
Faiveley reached the same agreement, with one employee seemingly
denied a job at Faiveley.
"[The candidate] "is a good guy, but I don't want to violate my own
agreement with [Faiveley Transport North America]," wrote a Wabtec
executive in an email obtained by DOJ. [GN]
WESTPAC: HESTA Signs Up to Potentially Massive Claim
----------------------------------------------------
The New Daily reports that health industry super fund HESTA is
taking on big financial institutions through class actions in a bid
to win back members' money.
It is one of a number of funds trying to increase members' savings
by challenging businesses in court when investments grow awry.
HESTA is currently signed up to 21 shareholder class actions
against miscreant companies that have dudded shareholders in some
way.
It's a good gig to be involved in as to date HESTA says it has
earned an average of $32 million from successful actions.
HESTA recently told a parliamentary inquiry into litigation funding
(providing financial backing to run class actions) that it
"participates in class actions to recover losses, but also as a
means of encouraging better standards of corporate governance and
improved accountability by companies, directors and corporate
advisers to their shareholders".
"We see legal action as a vital third arm of active ownership that
complements engagement and share voting to achieve long-term change
for benefit of members," HESTA's submission said.
A High Court decision in December means participation by big
institutional investors is now far more important to get class
actions off the ground.
"Until recently we would sign up under common fund orders where you
just need one applicant and the court would take care of funding
arrangements," Shine Lawyers class action partner Craig Allsopp
said.
"But in December the High Court said the court didn't have the
power to make common fund orders, so litigation funders want to
make sure enough people have signed funding agreements to ensure
that they'll get a commercial outcome.
"In that situation institutions are important to talk to."
That is because institutional shareholders like HESTA can have
holdings worth millions.
Getting their support means litigation funders have the confidence
to know their support of the action will be spread over enough
share holdings to make it worthwhile for claimants to join the fund
without legal costs eating up the award.
Tricky legal battle
The High Court battle, instigated by Westpac, was highly
strategic.
"Westpac thought if it got rid of common fund orders it would lower
its exposure to damages and probably get rid of the whole action,"
Mr Allsopp said.
But Shine went to work signing up people and "the action is still
in the courts," he said.
Following that ruling lawyers wanting to instigate shareholder
class actions "have to go and do a book build to try to sign up as
many institutional and retail claimants to funding agreements and
retainers as possible to give the litigation funders confidence,"
Mr Allsopp said.
In May Treasurer Josh Frydenberg threw another obstacle in the path
of class actions.
"He changed the way litigation funders were regulated and treated
them as managed investment schemes," Mr Allsopp said.
"It increases the costs of funders' compliance and might
potentially lessen competition in the market and both things would
potentially reduce returns to class action group members," Mr
Allsopp said.
The changes triggered a flurry of action, with 11 class actions
being lodged in the week before August 22 from when the new regime
applies.
HESTA has signed up to a potentially massive claim against Westpac
triggered when financial flow sleuth AUSTRAC charged the bank with
making 23 million illegal funds transfers that breached money
laundering and counter-terrorism provisions.
"The claim covers six years of transactions in Westpac stock to
November 2019," said Tim Finney, partner with Phi Finney McDonald,
the law firm running the action.
It is still before the courts and it is possible that Westpac could
receive a penalty of over $1 billion." [GN]
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: City of St. Clair Challenges Adoption of SRP
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF ST. CLAIR SHORES POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
behalf of itself and all other similarly situated stockholders of
THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC. v. ALAN S. ARMSTRONG, STEPHEN W.
BERGSTROM, NANCY K. BUESE, STEPHEN I. CHAZEN, CHARLES I. COGUT,
MICHAEL A. CREEL, VICKI L. FULLER, PETER A. RAGAUSS, SCOTT D.
SHEFFIELD, MURRAY D. SMITH, WILLIAM H. SPENCE, THE WILLIAMS
COMPANIES, INC., and COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Case No.
2020-0755 (Del. Ch., Sept. 3, 2020), alleges that the Defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
adoption of an unprecedented shareholder rights plan.
According to the complaint, the Board of Directors of the Williams
Companies unilaterally adopted the Shareholder Rights Agreement on
March 20, 2020, which includes a low 5% triggering and prohibits
any William stockholder or group of stockholders to influence the
direction of the Company or the Board and to take any action other
than those put forward or pre-approved by the Board. The Company
admitted that the unprecedented shareholder rights plan was not
adopted in response to any specific threat, but instead it was
adopted in response to what the Board believed was an inefficient
market for Williams stock.
As a result of the Defendants' continued maintenance of the
shareholder rights plan, all stockholders suffered imminent and
irreparable harm as it inequitably chills, and potentially even
precludes the fair exercise of the Williams stockholders'
franchise, the Plaintiff contends.
The Williams Companies, Inc., is an American energy company with
its principal place of business in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Computershare
Trust Company, N.A., is a stock transfer agent that offers investor
services. Computershare is incorporated in Massachusetts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq.
Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
123 Justison Street, 7th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 622-7000
ZOOM TELEPHONICS: Schulze Complaint Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Zoom Telephonics, Inc. 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 lead plaintiff in the putative class
action suit initiated by William Schulze had filed a Stipulation of
Dismissal that dismissed the Schulze Complaint with prejudice.
On January 23, 2020, William Schulze filed a complaint, and
subsequently filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2020
(collectively, the Schulze Complaint) 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.
[*] Employers Likely to Face a Wave of COVID-19 Suit Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
As the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to drastically impact
the U.S., class action lawsuits have been on the rise. Despite
court closures, class action filings have increased and are
expected to continue.
The risk to companies of class and collective action proceedings
has been amplified. Below are the key areas that have already
flooded the court system as well as issues that we expect to drive
class action litigation arising from the pandemic:
Wage and Hour: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), nonexempt
employees must be paid for all time worked including overtime rate
for any hours over 40 in a given work week.
Off-the-Clock Safety Precautions: Due to the impact of COVID-19,
many employers require new tasks before or after work, including,
but not limited to: temperature screening, health assessments
and/or cleaning of workspaces. Class action litigation has been
filed about whether time taken for these precautions is compensable
time.
Off-the-Clock Work from Home: Many employees are now working
remotely, which means they may be working outside of regular
business hours. Again, there is a risk of class action litigation
should employers fail to accurately record and pay for this time
worked including work performed during any unpaid meal or break
periods.
Worker Classification: Independent contractors are generally not
eligible for unemployment compensation or state-mandated paid leave
during the pandemic. This has caused some workers and state
governments to challenge independent contractor classification so
these workers may obtain benefits.
For Example: Rideshare drivers have filed class action lawsuits
against Uber Technologies and Lyft Inc. alleging that they have
been misclassified and are owed paid pandemic related paid leaves
or unemployment compensation.
Disability Accommodation and Discrimination: Class claims that
relate to reopening businesses may include disability
discrimination claims, retaliation claims, whistleblower claims and
privacy matters relating to COVID-19 diagnoses.
Employer Considerations: Employers must evaluate the legal
implications as well as how their actions might be viewed in the
"court of public opinion."
WARN Act: The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act (the WARN Act) requires advance notice to employees in
instances of mass layoffs and qualified plant closings. Mass
layoffs due to the devastating effects of the pandemic may lead to
class-action suits.
While employers have the ability to assert the "unforeseeable"
exemption to the law's notice requirements, the exemption remains
untried in federal courts in the context of COVID-19. Further, it
will only become more difficult for employers to avail themselves
of the unforeseeable business circumstances defense as more time
passes since the novel coronavirus hit the U.S. in March.
Though it may be a challenge for plaintiffs to obtain class
certification, once a case becomes certified, class action lawsuits
have the power to inflict severe damage to businesses. Employers
should take immediate action to reduce risk and exposure by
reviewing wage and hour practices, record keeping procedures,
contracts, handbooks and other policies to ensure that they are in
compliance. [GN]
[*] Pharmacy Chains Sued for Refusing Prescription for Medication
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sf Examiner reports that national class action lawsuits were filed
this month against the country's largest pharmacy chains after they
allegedly refused to fill legitimate opioid prescriptions for
people with chronic pain.
Susan Smith, 43, a mother from Castro Valley, California, filed a
class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Francisco
against Walgreens and Costco, alleging that the pharmacies refused
to fill her legal prescriptions for opioid medication. On behalf of
herself and other plaintiffs, Smith alleged that the companies'
practices were discriminatory.
"After being harassed by pharmacists [and] pharmacy staff for a
number of years--being laughed at, being called names in front of
my child--I really couldn't take it anymore," Smith said. "It has
been really stressful, demoralizing, not to mention discriminating.
On top of that, they were making it really hard for me to live a
pain-free life."
Smith was diagnosed with epilepsy at the age of 17 due to repeated
head trauma from child abuse, causing grand mal seizures. Her
epilepsy worsened, leading to debilitating migraines almost daily.
In 2010, Smith suffered a seizure while driving and got into a car
accident. She suffered from severe injuries to her right leg, Smith
said, and she was prescribed opioid medication.
Smith's seizures became uncontrollable, severely damaging her
brain. After undergoing brain surgery, Smith was left with near
constant migraine headaches so severe that she cannot walk at
times, suffering from bouts of nausea and vomiting, the lawsuit
stated.
Traditional anti-seizure and migraine medications are not viable
options, the lawsuit stated, as Smith has 15 documented medical
allergies.
"My doctors had tried a number of other medications, and morphine
was the one that gave me the most relief," Smith said. "It does not
take away my pain completely. It only provides some relief."
Smith has been prescribed with morphine, an opioid found in the
opium poppy plant, for her chronic pain since 2011. And since 2012,
she has taken the same dose prescribed by the same physician, the
lawsuit stated.
For the past eight years, however, Smith has had difficulties with
pharmacists at Walgreens and Costco to fill her opioid
prescription, according to the lawsuit.
"Due to the opioid epidemic, they see all chronic pain patients as
criminals," Smith said. "They think that we're all in there as drug
seekers."
After an orthopedic surgery in 2017, Smith's physician prescribed
her with additional pain medications. Smith said a pharmacist at
Walgreens checked her prescription and found that she was taking
another pain medication. Thus, the pharmacist said she couldn't
fill the prescription, according to Smith. The pharmacist
questioned whether her doctor knew whether or not she was already
taking morphine, Smith said.
"I said 'yes, in fact he told me that if you had any issues that
you could call him,'" Smith said. "And she told me that she did not
need to call him and rather I should look into rehab instead of
pain medication."
Smith had had surgery less than an hour prior to the encounter, she
said. Her arm was bandaged and her leg was wrapped up with bandage
and gauze.
"It was really apparent that I just had surgery," Smith said. "And
we took the prescription and left. I went home that night and was
without that extra pain medication."
The encounter was just one instance among others of alleged
discrimination and refusal from pharmacies to fill her legal
prescription.
Walgreens declined to comment on the lawsuit due to ongoing
litigation. Costco did not respond to a request for comment as of
press time.
Another class action lawsuit filed in Rhode Island was brought by
Edith Fuog, 48 year-old mother from Florida, against CVS Pharmacy
and Caremark PhC, a subsidiary of CVS. Fuog was diagnosed with
stage-1 breast cancer in 2011. She subsequently developed a host of
conditions such as Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a
form of flesh eating bacteria, according to the lawsuit. And CVS
Pharmacy had allegedly refused to fill her legitimate opioid
prescriptions, according to the lawsuit.
"These are people that have severe medical diagnoses that require
pain medication," said Scott Hirsch, one of the lead attorneys
handling the cases. "They are seeking a physician's help. They are
undergoing treatment and they are following everything under the
rules. And the pharmacies - through their policies - are
discriminating against them and refusing to fill their
prescription."
Prior to the crackdown on opioids, Hirsch said, pharmacies were
filling opioid prescriptions to people who should not have had
their prescriptions filled. Now, the pendulum has swung to the
other way. After the Center for Disease Control (CDC) issued
guidelines for opioid prescription, pharmacies have "taken the CDC
guidelines--which are really meant for acute pain patients--and
they're blanketly applying them as gospels."
CVS Pharmacy and Caremark PhC did not respond to requests for
comment as of press time.
"I just hope to bring awareness to the issue and that justice will
be served to all the chronic pain patients out there so that they
don't have to go through the horrible, demoralizing and unfair
practices being brought forth by Walgreens, Costco, CVS, and other
pharmacies," Smith said. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2020. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***