/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201006.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 6, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 200 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Holliday Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 23 Deadline APPLE INC: Summary Judgment in Frlekin Wage-and-Hour Suit Reversed ATLANTIC BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call BEAUMONT CITY, TX: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Claims BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline BLINK CHARGING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 23 Deadline BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Suit Dismissed as to Jersey Plaza BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline COCRYSTAL PHARMA: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set COLUMBIA VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Maldonado Class Suit DUKE ELLINGTON GOURMET: Cristino Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Announces Oct. 13 Deadline ELMHURST CO: Facilities Not Accessible to PWDs, Mortland Claims ENERGY RECOVERY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline ENHANCED RECOVERY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York FASTLY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Violations FENNEC PHARMACEUTICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline FORESCOUT TECH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Chevy Camaro Starter Problems GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action GOHEALTH INC: Strianese Sues Over 40% Drop in IPO Share Price GOL LINHAS AEREAS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit GOOGLE INC: Canadian Provinces File Unlawful Data Collection Suits GRAND BRANDS: Drink Mixes Have Synthetic Flavor, Tedesco Alleges GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 23 Deadline HDFC BANK: Faces Class Action Suits Brought by 3 Law Firms HDFC BANK: Rosen Legal Files Class Action Suit HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Odyssey Transmission Issues IDS PROPERTY: MSP Recovery Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Advises of Sept. 19 Deadline LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline LOCKHEED MARTIN: Mismanages Hazardous Toxins, Grayson Suit Says LOUISIANA: Court Grants Motion to Withdraw Class Certification Bid MORGAN STANLEY: December 12 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit NANO-X IMAGING: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action NANO-X IMAGING: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit NAT'L HOCKEY: Former Kamloops Blazers' Forward Files Class Action NIALL INC: Faces Lora Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action NIKOLA CORP: Kirby McInerney Announces Securities Class Action NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action OLD DOMINION: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Flips Gravitystorm Suit Dismissal ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline PARTY CITY: McInnis Sues Over Illegal Collection of Fingerprints PEABODY ENERGY: OK Firefighters PRS Sues Over Drop in Share Price PEACH STATE: Faces Oliver FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report PNC MERCHANT: Wins Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit Over Annual Fee PORTLAND GENERAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action POSITIVE LIVING: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $1.2MM REINSURANCE GROUP: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Sanders Says SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Monopolizes Auto Card Shufflers, Giuliano Says SEACOAST COMMERCE: Filings on EFSC Sale Lack Info, Parshall Says SLING TV: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Claims STAAR SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit STANTEC INC: Annapolis Citizens Sue Over Illegal Water Charges SUPER BREAD II: Bid to Quash Filed in Fuentes Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 8-Speed Transmission Issues TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Suit Transferred to E.D. New York UNUM GROUP: Park Sues in California Over Unlawful Labor Practices URSA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Lease Operators' OT, Velasco Claims VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Files Suit in Michigan YOU FIT HEALTH: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Membership Fee Charges [*] Allow Class Action Suits Against Polluters, Says Lawyer ********* 3M COMPANY: Holliday Sues Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects ------------------------------------------------------------- LON HOLLIDAY, Jr. v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA MANAGEMENT, LLC; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE PRODUCTS GP HOLDING, LLC; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-03430-RMG (D.S.C., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, distributed, sold, manufactured, released, trained users on, produced instructional materials for, and/or otherwise handled and/or used aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Moreover, the Defendants did not warn public entities, firefighter trainees, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human health. As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the Plaintiff alleges that he developed serious medical conditions and complications due to his exposure to Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during the course of his training and firefighting activities. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma Management, LLC is a global color and specialty chemicals company headquartered in Reinach, Switzerland. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. BASF Corporation is a multinational chemical company with its principal place of business located in Ludwigshafen, Germany. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, in Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, in Wilmington, Delaware. Fire Products GP Holding, LLC is a manufacturer of fire protection products based in Bismarck, North Dakota. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems based in Ashland, Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, in Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, in Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq. Steven D. Gacovino, Esq. GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 270 West Main Street Sayville, NY 11782 Telephone: (631) 600-0000 Facsimile: (631) 543-5450 - and – Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 ANAPLAN INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of October 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Sept. 7 announced that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Anaplan Inc. ("Anaplan" or the "Company") (NYSE: PLAN) between November 21, 2019 and February 26, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 If you purchased Anaplan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Anaplan Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) the Company was undergoing sales organization and execution challenges; (2) these organizational challenges were causing the Company to miss on closing very important large deals; and (3) as a result, Anaplan's financial guidance for "calculated billings growth" was baseless and unattainable On February 27, 2020, the Company announced that, its calculated billings for the fourth quarter fell far short of expectations. Specifically billings were only $126 million, representing a growth rate of 25%, which was well below consensus estimates of $138 million, and roughly half of the Company's historical growth rates of 46% to 59%, and far less than the Company's rate of revenue growth of over 40%. On this news Anaplan's stock price dropped 25% in one day, falling from $58.09 to $44.03 wiping out almost $2 billion in market cap. 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 Anaplan securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/anaplaninc-plan-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-301/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. Contacts Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] APPLE INC: Summary Judgment in Frlekin Wage-and-Hour Suit Reversed ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, AMANDA FRLEKIN; TAYLOR KALIN; AARON GREGOROFF; SETH DOWLING; DEBRA SPEICHER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-17382 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting Apple's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Frlekin, Kalin, Gregoroff, Owling, and Speicher brought the wage-and-hour class action on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees who have worked in Defendant Apple's retail stores in California since July 25, 2009. The Plaintiffs seek compensation for time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to Apple's "Employee Package and Bag Searches" policy. The Employees estimate that the time spent waiting for and undergoing an exit search pursuant to the Policy typically ranges from five to twenty minutes, depending on the manager or security guard's availability. Some employees reported waiting up to 45 minutes to undergo an exit search. Employees receive no compensation for the time spent waiting for and undergoing exit searches, because they must clock out before undergoing a search pursuant to the Policy. On July 16, 2015, the district court certified a class defined as "all Apple California non-exempt employees who were subject to the bag-search policy from July 25, 2009, to the present." Because of concerns that individual issues regarding the different reasons why employees brought bags to work, ranging from personal convenience to necessity," would predominate in a class-wide adjudication, the district court (with the Plaintiffs' consent) made clear in its certification order that "bag searches" would "be adjudicated as compensable or not based on the most common scenario, that is, an employee who voluntarily brought a bag to work purely for personal convenience." Therefore, the certified class did not include employees who were required to bring a bag or iPhone to work because of special needs (such as medication or a disability accommodation). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of liability. On Nov. 7, 2015, the district court granted Apple's motion and denied Plaintiffs' motion. The district court ruled that time spent by class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is not compensable as "hours worked" under California law because such time was neither subject to the control of the employer nor time during which the class members were suffered or permitted to work. The Plaintiffs timely appealed. The Court certified to the California Supreme Court the question of state law: Whether the time spent on the employer's premises waiting for, and undergoing, required exit searches of packages or bags voluntarily brought to work purely for personal convenience by employees compensable as hours worked is within the meaning of California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 7. The California Supreme Court concluded the answer to the question certified, as reformulated, is yes. Following the California Supreme Court's decision, the parties filed supplemental briefs addressing whether there are factual disputes that would preclude summary judgment for the Plaintiffs on remand. The Ninth Circuit holds that because no material facts are in dispute as to whether time spent by the class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is compensable as "hours worked" under California law, the Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on that legal question. In answering the question certified, as reformulated, the California Supreme Court held that Apple's employees are subject to Apple's control while awaiting, and during, Apple's exit searches, and therefore Apple must compensate those employees for the time spent waiting for and undergoing" the exit searches pursuant to the Policy. The district court had held to the contrary in granting summary judgment to Apple. Accordingly, the court erred in granting summary judgment to Apple. For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of Apple's motion for summary judgment and denial of the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. It remanded for further proceedings with instructions to (1) grant the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether time spent by the class members waiting for and undergoing exit searches pursuant to the Policy is compensable as "hours worked" under California law, and (2) determine the remedy to be afforded to individual class members. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 2, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5ll8obe from Leagle.com. Kimberly A. Kralowec (argued) -- kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com -- and Kathleen S. Rogers -- krogers@kraloweclaw.com -- The Kralowec Law Group, San Francisco, California; Lee S. Shalov and Brett R. Gallaway, McLaughlin & Stern LLP, New York, New York; for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Julie A. Dunne (argued) -- mail@dunnefamilylaw.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., San Diego, California; Richard H. Rahm, Littler Mendelson P.C., San Francisco, California; Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Joshua S. Lipshutz , Bradley J. Hamburger, and Lauren M. Blas, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. Michael D. Singer and Janine R. Menhennet -- jmenhennetlaw@gmail.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, San Diego, California, for Amicus Curiae California Employment Lawyers Association. ATLANTIC BUSINESS: Faces Fabricant TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Call ------------------------------------------------------------------ TERRY FABRICANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATLANTIC BUSINESS CONSULTING & CAPITAL, LLC d/b/a FINANCE FACTORY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:20-cv-08767 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 24, 2020), is brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged negligent and willful violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant placed a call to his cellular telephone number ending in -1083 beginning in or around August 2018 by using automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in an attempt to solicit him to purchase its services. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not obtain his prior express consent" to receive calls using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone. The Plaintiff asserts that he was harmed by the unsolicited calls of the Defendant causing him to incur certain charges or reduced telephone time for which he had previously paid, and his privacy has also been invaded. Atlantic Business Consulting & Capital, LLC, d/b/a Finance Factory, is a business financing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com BEAUMONT CITY, TX: Refuses to Pay Overtime Wages, Noble Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- LIZABETH M. NOBLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, Case No. 1:20-cv-00400 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff claims that she regularly worked in excess of forty hours per week. However, she has found out on August 12, 2020, that the Defendant has not been paying her for the time she spent traveling back and forth to the Beaumont Police Department, which the Defendant required her prior to clocking in at the Beaumont Municipal Court. As a result, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime at one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for the hours she worked in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep accurate records of hours worked by and wages paid to non-exempt employees, including the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt Deputy Court Clerk III/Jail Arraignment Clerk for the last ten years. The City of Beaumont is a city in and the county seat of Jefferson County, Texas, in the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Hallmark, Esq. Robert B. Dunham, Esq. DUNHAM HALLMARK, PLLC 4180 Delaware, Suite 301 Beaumont, TX 77706 Tel: 409-434-4185 Fax: 888-325-0090 E-mail: jhallmark@dunhamhallmark.com rdunham@dunhamhallmark.com BLINK CHARGING: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of 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 station, 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. © 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(877) 779-1414 E-mail: MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] BLINK CHARGING: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of October 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Blink Charging Company ("Blink" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLNK) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and docketed under 20-cv-23643, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Blink securities between March 6, 2020, and August 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. If you are a shareholder who purchased Blink securities during the class period, you have until October 23, 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 rswilloughby@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. According to its most recent Annual Report filed on Form 10-K with the SEC, Blink purports to be "a leading owner, operator, and provider of" electric vehicle ("EV") "charging equipment and networked charging services. Blink offers both residential and commercial EV charging equipment, enabling EV drivers to easily recharge at various location types." Recently, Blink has touted the purported growth of its EV charging network, asserting that "drivers can easily charge at any of [Blink's] 15,000 charging stations." Over the last several months, Blink's stock price has climbed from trading between approximately $1.40 to $3.12 per share to an intraday high of $14.58 per share on July 30, 2020. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, 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, or 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. Culper continued to detail that of the 242 stations its investigators visited in the Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and San Diego metro areas, twenty-three times (9.5% of total), Blink's map claimed that there were chargers onsite, but Culper's investigators were either unable to locate the chargers or locate all of the chargers claimed. In thirty-nine cases (16.1% of total), Culper's investigators "found chargers that, even though they existed, were visibly damaged and/or non-functional," and that "[a]s many of these chargers have been left to the elements for close to a decade, the most common deformities were due to sun and heat damage." Furthermore, in another eighteen cases (7.4% of total), Culper's investigators "found that chargers were inaccessible to the general public," and that "[m]any of these were behind locked garages, or restricted only for employee (in office buildings) or resident (in condo or apartment buildings) use only." Culper concluded: "In short, our sampling suggests that of the 3,275 chargers listed on the Company's map, only 67% of these, or 2,192 exist, are functional, and are publicly accessible." The Culper report included photos, from multiple locations, of Blink chargers that were severely damaged, inaccessible, and/or non-functional. It also included details of interviews with parking attendants and other locals who described the lack of use and/or other issues experienced with the Blink chargers. Also on August 19, 2020, analyst Mariner Research Group ("Mariner") published another report that was highly critical of Blink. Mariner wrote that Blink's "revenue growth has significantly seriously lagged the EV industry -- yet CEO Farkas made >$7M in compensation during this period. We believe that this is due to persistent issues around product quality, customer churn, and user experience, and believe that these issues will continue to hamper [Blink]'s growth." Mariner concluded: "[W]e believe the business should be valued at its liquidation, or book value, of just 17c in a downside scenario and at $2 a share in a bull case scenario . . . . The average of our price targets produces a base case target of $1.09, a drop of 91% from the 8/18/20 close." On this news, Blink's stock price fell from its August 18, 2020 closing price of $10.23 per share to an August 20, 2020 closing price of $7.94 per share. This represents a two day drop of approximately 22.4%. Indeed, the intraday price on August 20, 2020 reached as low as $6.42 per share. 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. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT: Wicker Suit Dismissed as to Jersey Plaza -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, TYREESE WICKER, Plaintiff, v. BLOOMFIELD DISCOUNT, LLC, JERSEY PLAZA, LLC, MOHAMMAD ASIF KHAN, and DHAVAL JAIN, Defendants, Docket No. 19-cv-19053 (WJM) (D. N.J.), Judge William J. Martini of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (i) granted Defendant Jersey Plaza's Motion to Dismiss, and (ii) granted in part and denied in part Defendant Khan's Motion to Dismiss. The case is an employment discrimination case. The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against Defendant Bloomfield Discount, Jersey Plaza, Khan, and Jain. He alleges discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and discrimination, retaliation and aiding and abetting under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). Plaintiff Wicker is an African American male and resident of Essex County, New Jersey. He alleges that on April 23, 2016, he inquired about working at Defendant Bloomfield Discount. He claims he was told by an unspecified person that the store was only looking for cashiers and that the owner only hires women for the cashier position. The Plaintiff further alleges that he then spoke with Defendant Jain, the manager on duty at Bloomfield Discount, who told him that Bloomfield Discount was hiring ladies for the cashier position and that men do the floors. The Plaintiff was instructed to write his name and number in a notebook but claims that he was neither contacted nor hired for the cashier position. Defendant Bloomfield Discount was purchased two years after the incident by Defendant Jersey Plaza in September 2018. Defendant Khan is the Owner and General Manager of Bloomfield Discount. The Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bloomfield Discount engages in a practice or pattern of unlawfully considering the race and sex of an applicant, and in doing so, does not meaningfully consider African American or male applicants for certain positions. Of the 20 employees whose job title is "cashier," 19 are women. Additionally, from 2015 to 2016, 55 people were hired, and only six employees were African American. The Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of race and sex which prevented him from being hired for the position he sought and for which he was qualified. The Plaintiff asserts the following claims: (1) employment discrimination under Title VII; (2) retaliation under Title VII; (3) discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (4) employment discrimination under New Jerse LAD; (5) retaliation under New Jerse LAD; and (6) aiding and abetting under New Jerse LAD. Before the Court is Jersey Plaza's motion to dismiss all six claims against it and Mohammad Khan's motion to dismiss four claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 12(b)(6). Defendant Jersey Plaza moves to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint under Rule 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiff brings all six claims against Jersey Plaza stemming from its alleged hiring practices in violation of state and federal law. The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff's factual pleadings are insufficient. Judge Martini agrees. The Plaintiff includes two facts in the Amended Complaint that concern Jersey Plaza, namely: (1) Jersey Plaza purchased Bloomfield Discount in September 2018 and (2) around June 2019, the EEOC amended their initial determination which found reasonable cause to believe Bloomfield Discount was discriminating on the basis of sex and race in their hiring practices to include Jersey Plaza as a named Respondent. These facts, while taken as true, do not plausibly implicate Jersey Plaza in discriminatory or retaliatory conduct. Jersey Plaza did not exist at the time of the alleged incident on April 23, 2016. It was incorporated on April 19, 2018 and subsequently purchased Bloomfield Discount in September 2018. The Plaintiff appears to rely on a theory of successor liability as a way to hold Jersey Plaza liable for Bloomfield Discount's debt and liabilities. He, however, does not plead facts supporting a theory of successor liability in his complaint. Therefore, for these reasons, the Judge concludes that the Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Jersey Plaza. Defendant Jersey Plaza's motion to dismiss is granted. The Plaintiffs' request for limited discovery is denied. The Plaintiff brings four claims against Defendant Khan: (1) Discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981; (2) Discrimination under New Jersey LAD; (3) Retaliation under New Jersey LAD; and (4) Aiding and Abetting under New Jersey LAD. Defendant Khan moves to dismiss all four counts. Defendant Khan's motion to dismiss as to Count Three is granted. The Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered racial discrimination and that the Defendant's actions violated any of his enumerated rights. The only reference to Khan's discriminatory intent is the statement that the Defendants constantly enforced a purposefully discriminatory pattern and practice of depriving African-American individuals of the equal rights described, in further violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. Since, conclusory allegations of generalized racial bias do not establish discriminatory intent, the Plaintiff has not alleged that Khan acted with racial animus. Defendant Khan's Motion to Dismiss as to Counts Four and Five is also granted. The Judge finds that the term employer in the LAD does not include a supervisor. Instead, individual liability of supervisors under LAD may only arise through the "aiding and abetting" mechanism that applies to "any person." Accordingly, the Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation, Counts Four and Five, as to Defendant Khan must fail because individual liability cannot be imposed for such types of claims under NJLAD. In Count Six, the Plaintiff pleads aiding and abetting under NJLAD as against Defendant Khan. A supervisor may be found individually liable under the LAD if he aids and abets the action prohibited by the act. The Plaintiff argues that Bloomfield Discount's discriminatory policy stems from Khan's discriminatory intent to only hire women as cashiers. Khan's motion to dismiss as to Count Six is granted. The Judge finds that Khan is generally aware of his role as part of an overall illegal activity when Jain, with the authority to hire people, tells potential employees that they only hire women for the cashier position. It can be inferred from the statement that the owner only hires women for the cashier position that Khan knowingly and substantially assisted in creating the policy. Based on the foregoing, Judge Martini granted Defendant Jersey Plaza's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint as to Jersey Plaza. He granted in part and denied in part Defendant Khan's Motion to Dismiss. Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice as to Defendant Khan. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 2, 2020 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y59cl9uz from Leagle.com. BRASKEM SA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Oct. 26 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action that has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the common stock of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAK) between May 6, 2016 and July 8, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Braskem Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operations and prospects. Specifically, Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors that the Company was overstating and/or mischaracterizing: (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 Macei." 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. 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. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than October 26, 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 Braskem securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/braskemsa-bak-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-296/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. © 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] CABOT OIL: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of October 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. COG Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9381&wire=1 Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE:COG) COG Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 23, 2015 - June 12, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : October 13, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/cabot-oil-gas-corporation-information-request-form?prid=9381&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Cabot had inadequate environmental controls and procedures and/or failed to properly mitigate known issues related to those controls and procedures; (ii) as a result, Cabot, among other issues, failed to fix faulty gas wells, thereby polluting Pennsylvania's water supplies through stray gas migration; (iii) the foregoing was foreseeably likely to subject Cabot to increased governmental scrutiny and enforcement, as well as increased reputational and financial harm; (iv) Cabot continually downplayed its potential civil and/or criminal liabilities with respect to such environmental matters; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] COCRYSTAL PHARMA: December 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Sept. 7 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. and/or BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCP): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SECURITIES CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC. AND/OR BIOZONE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 AND SEPTEMBER 7, 2018, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, that a hearing will be held on December 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Kevin McNulty, United States District Judge of the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Courtroom PO 04, Newark, New Jersey 07102 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $1,265,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount ($421,666.66) plus a proportionate share of interest accrued on the Settlement Amount, Lead Counsel's reimbursement of litigation expenses incurred of not more than $65,000, and Awards to Plaintiffs of not more than $15,000 in total, should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, fully executed on August 17, 2020 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The Court reserves the right to hold the Settlement Hearing telephonically or by other virtual means. The proposed Settlement would resolve the Action alleging that, in violation of the federal securities laws, Defendants (1) allegedly made misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in various public statements concerning an alleged scheme to inflate the price of securities of Cocrystal Pharma, Inc.'s ("Cocrystal" or the "Company") predecessor, BioZone Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("BioZone") and an alleged undisclosed related party transaction, and (2) allegedly manipulated the market for BioZone securities. Defendants deny the allegations. If you purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of Cocrystal and/or BioZone between September 23, 2013 and September 7, 2018, both dates inclusive ("Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Cocrystal securities. You may obtain copies of the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Securities Class Action ("Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form by writing to or calling the Claims Administrator: Cocrystal Pharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box 230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985; info@strategicclaims.net. You can also download copies of the Notice and submit your Proof of Claim and Release Form online at www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form electronically or postmarked no later than November 16, 2020 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 are a Settlement Class Member and desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than November 25, 2020, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection by a Settlement Class Member to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, Lead Counsel's requests for an award to Lead Counsel of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and Awards to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than November 25, 2020, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of New Jersey Martin Luther King Building & U.S. Courthouse 50 Walnut Street Newark, NJ 07102 LEAD COUNSEL: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS COCRYSTAL PHARMA, INC., GARY WILCOX, JEFFREY MECKLER, GERALD MCGUIRE, JAMES MARTIN, AND CURTIS DALE: PERKINS COIE LLP Ronald L. Berenstain 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT PHILLIP FROST MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P.C. Robert J. Anello 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BARRY HONIG: WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Michael Sommer 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS JOHN STETSON AND STETSON CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC.: MILBANK, LLP Adam Fee 55 Hudson Yards New York, NY 10001 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MARK GROUSSMAN AND MELECHDAVID, INC.: BAKER MCKENZIE LLP Perrie Weiner 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS JOHN O'ROURKE III AND ATG CAPITAL LLC ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Randy Luskey 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JOHN FORD: CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI P.C. A. Ross Pearlson One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS MICHAEL BRAUSER AND GRANDER HOLDINGS, INC. RICHARD AND RICHARD, P.A. Dennis Richard Melissa L. Mackiewicz 825 Brickell Bay Drive Tower III, Suite 1748 Miami, FL 33131 Elliot Maza 550 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 102 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Brian Keller 5058 Nortonville Way Antioch CA 94531 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel: THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Phillip Kim 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 pkim@rosenlegal.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: August 18, 2020 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY [GN] COLUMBIA VALLEY: Court Narrows Claims in Maldonado Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ISELA M. MALDONADO, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA VALLEY EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. C20-5428-BHS-TLF (W.D. Wash.), Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss or to strike class allegations. The matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. No objections having been filed. Having considered the R&R and the remaining record, Judge Settle adopted it. He granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff's claims for negligence, common law procedural unconscionability and common law substantive unconscionability are dismissed; the Plaintiff's claim for breach of implied contract is not dismissed; and the Defendants' motion to strike class action allegations is denied without prejudice. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff in this case alleges that she was subjected to wrongful excessive and unreasonable medical billing--gouging--by the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybybbody from Leagle.com. DUKE ELLINGTON GOURMET: Cristino Seeks Overtime Pay, Tip Credits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Juarez Cristino, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Duke Ellington Gourmet Corp., Ghazi Ghanem and Gamal Doe, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-07546 (E.D. N.Y., September 15, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate or control a deli in New York City under the name "Duke Ellington Gourmet Deli" where Cristino was employed as a delivery worker. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Duke Ellington claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite requiring Cristino to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. He also claims to have never received wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com EASTMAN KODAK: Schall Law Announces Oct. 13 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Eastman Kodak Company ("Kodak" or "the Company") (NYSE:KODK) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between July 27, 2020 and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before October 13, 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. Kodak failed to disclose that it had granted insiders stocks options worth millions just before the public announcement of a $765 million loan from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation to develop medicines to treat COVID-19, an announcement which the Company knew would immediately increase the value of its shares. Kodak insiders also purchased tens of thousands of shares before the announcement, acting on the news before it went public. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Kodak, 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. [GN] ELMHURST CO: Facilities Not Accessible to PWDs, Mortland Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Mortland, Individually v. ELMHURST COMPANY L P, a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:20-cv-01455-JFC (W.D. Pa., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of individuals similarly situated, asserting claims under the enforcement provision of the American with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is paralyzed as a result of a spinal cord injury and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility, making him an individual with disability as defined by the ADA. According to the complaint, during the Plaintiff's stay at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown, owned by the Defendant, as a bona fide overnight hotel guest on February 27-28, 2019, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property that violate the ADA and its regulations. Additionally, during the Plaintiff's visit as a hotel restaurant customer on May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the subject property that also violate the ADA and its regulations. The Plaintiff also alleges that the encountered barriers to access at the property have endangered his safety. He further asserts that the Defendant has discriminated against him by denying access to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the buildings. Elmhurst Company L.P. operates and owns a DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF OWEN DUNN, JR. The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center 4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222 Toledo, OH 43615 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net ENERGY RECOVERY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Sept. 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Energy Recovery, Inc. (NASDAQ:ERII) investors that acquired shares between August 2, 2017 and June 29, 2020. Investors have until September 20, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email. Energy Recovery develops and manufactures technologies for the oil & gas, chemical and water industries. The Company entered into a 15-year licensing agreement with Schlumberger Technology Corp. ("Schlumberger") for the exclusive use of Energy Recovery’s VorTeq hydraulic pump system. On June 29, 2020, the Company announced the termination of the licensing agreement with Schlumberger citing "different strategic perspectives as to the path to VorTeq commercialization." Analysts quickly criticized the Company, stating, "[Energy Recovery] should have been able to perceive in advance and then explicitly warn about the significant, and likely rising, odds of this outcome." The lawsuit alleges that Energy Recovery made false and misleading statements to the public throughout the Class Period and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company and Schlumberger had different strategic perspectives regarding commercialization of VorTeq (ii) which created substantial risk of early termination of the Company’s exclusive licensing agreement with Schlumberger; (iii) accordingly, the revenue guidance and expectations of future license revenue was false and lacked reasonable basis; and (iv) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted material facts. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 20, 2020. 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] ENHANCED RECOVERY: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- In class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK VOLKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, d/b/a ERC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00091-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. granting a motion for preliminary approval of the Parties' class action settlement agreement; 2. setting the deadline by which Class Members may file and serve an objection to approval of the Agreement; 3. scheduling a date for a hearing on final approval; and 4. approving the form and method of mailing notice to the Class. Class Recovery: ERC will create a class settlement fund of $133,000.00, which the Administrator shall distribute on a pro rata basis ($78.70) to each of the 1,690 Class Members who did not previously seek exclusion from the Class, and whose Notice of Settlement is not returned as undeliverable. Plaintiff's Recovery: Subject to Court approval, ERC agrees to pay Plaintiff $1,000.00 for his statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(B), plus an additional $5,000.00 in recognition of his service to the Class. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. ERC agrees that Plaintiff brought a "successful action" under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k and, thus, subject to Court approval, is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs $151,000.00, which covers all fees and expenses, including class administration, arising from the Litigation. On September 23, 2020, the Plaintiff and ERC participated in a full day of mediation, which was preceded by ERC's supplementation of its discovery regarding damages. The Parties' mediation was successful and culminated in the Class Settlement Agreement which accompanies this Motion. On January 17, 2018, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed this lawsuit alleging ERC violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing him a letter which, by its terms, only described a debt ERC sought to collect and failed to "clearly and accurately" disclose the name of the creditor to whom the debt was then owed in satisfaction. Enhanced Recovery is part of the Collection Agencies Industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement agreement is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2HMgtaB at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for Plaintiff, Derek Volkman, and the Certified Class are: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Francis R. Greene, Esq. Philip D. Stern, Esq. Katelyn B. Busby, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 E-mail: Andrew@SternThomasson.com Francis@SternThomasson.com Philip@SternThomasson.com Katelyn@SternThomasson.com ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION: Perez Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARCO ANTONIO PEREZ PEREZ, and JOSE EDUARDO SANCHEZ ARIAS, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. ESCOBAR CONSTRUCTION, INC.; NATIONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.; and JHONY A. ESCOBAR, Case No. 3:19-cv-01623, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on September 28, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-08010-LTS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, including failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated construction workers minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, failure to provide meal periods, failure to keep payroll records, failure to provide time of hire wage notice, and failure to provide wage statements. Escobar Construction, Inc. is a general contractor, specializing in commercial construction, with its principal address located at 7621 Crawfordsville Road, in Indianapolis, Indiana. Nations Construction, Inc. is a construction company with its principal address located at 6690 Dunsdin Drive, in Plainfield, Indiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 103 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 FASTLY INC: Bernstein Liebhard Investigates Securities Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, on Sept. 7 disclosed that it is investigating Fastly, Inc. ("Fastly" or the "Company") (NYSE: FSLY) resulting from allegations that Fastly might have issued misleading information to the investing public. If you purchased Fastly securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Fastly Shareholder Investigation or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. On August 5, 2020 after market close, Fastly held its second quarter earnings conference call. During the call, Defendants disclosed that ByteDance was Fastly's largest customer in the second quarter of 2020, and that TikTok represented about 12% of Fastly's revenue for the six months ended June 30, 2020. 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. If you purchased Fastly securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/fastlyinc-fsly-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-302/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. Contacts: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ:FENC) Investors Affected : February 11, 2020 - August 10, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, the Company’s sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/fennec-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9409&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] FENNEC PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Nov. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Sept. 7 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Fennec Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: FENC) between February 11, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Fennec investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Fennec class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1926.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 to investors that: (1) the manufacturing facilities for PEDMARK, Fennec's sole product candidate, did not comply with current good manufacturing practices; (2) as a result, regulatory approval for PEDMARK was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Fennec's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 November 2, 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-1926.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FORESCOUT TECH: Johnson Fistel Reminds of Sept. 28 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Forescout Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FSCT) ("Forescout" or the Company") on behalf of all purchasers of common stock during the period between February 7, 2019 and May 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 28, 2020. If you want to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. Period, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose: (1) dramatic cuts to the number of employees began in early 2019 throughout the Company, particularly within the sales department; (2) a significant number of sales employees left the Company due to declining sales throughout 2019; (3) the productivity of the Company's sales representatives seriously declined throughout 2019; (4) the Company misrepresented their pipeline of deals, and their expected closing date, to buttress their stock prices; and (5) despite announcing a definitive deal to be acquired by Advent International, following disclosure of the Company's poor financial state, the deal fell through. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Forescout common stock during the Class Period. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Jim Baker Johnson Fistel, LLP Tel No: 619-814-4471 E-mail: jimb@johnsonfistel.com[GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over Chevy Camaro Starter Problems ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that a new class-action lawsuit has been filed over alleged recurring problems with the starter motor in the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro. The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in the state of Delaware, alleges General Motors "knowingly sold Chevy Camaro models without disclosing that the vehicles are plagued by a starter and/or heat shield defect." The suit claims the 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro has inadequate heat shields that fail to protect the starter motor from engine bay heat. The additional heat allegedly puts resistance on the electrical conductors inside the motor, which forces it to use more power than usual to start the engine. This, in turn, can allegedly wear out the motor prematurely. It also says the starter motor issues will typically manifest in hot weather or directly after being driven and that the heating issues can damage the vehicle's wiring and battery as well. The 40-page suit also says GM has consistently refused to fix the starter motors under warranty, instead forcing customers to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars out-of-pocket for the repairs. "GM's failure to disclose the starter defect at the time of purchase is material because no reasonable consumer expects to spend hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars to repair or replace damaged vehicle components that the manufacturer knows will fail well before the expected useful life of the component and damage other components of the vehicle as well," the 40-page complaint reads. "Had GM disclosed the starter defect, the plaintiff and class members would not have purchased the class vehicles or would have paid less for them." A number of similar owner complaints can be easily located on Chevrolet Camaro enthusiast forums around the web. One Camaro6.com forum user, JReagle56, previously authored a post describing their experiences with their personal Camaro's starter. "Had the issue pop up 3 times so far since brand new," the post reads. "Once right after I got the car. It was a hot August day driving around breaking in the engine, tranny, rear axle and brakes. Returned home and parked the car in garage; had to go right back out a few minutes later; slow turnover, pause and it started. Then again this year. A 2 hr drive to the beach, really hot day, waiting in line to park, stalled car, restart and the starter just barely turned over, started on the 2nd rotation, if a 3rd was needed I don't think it would have done it. Seems like when the starter is heat soaked something goes wrong." This class action is open to any 2010-present Chevrolet Camaro owners or lessees who have experienced these same issues with the vehicle's starter motor and battery. [GN] GENIUS BRANDS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Genius Brands International, Inc (NASDAQ:GNUS) Investors Affected : March 17, 2020 - July 5, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Genius Brands International, Inc. 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. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/genius-brands-international-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=9409&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] GOHEALTH INC: Strianese Sues Over 40% Drop in IPO Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER STRIANESE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOHEALTH, INC., CLINTON P. JONES, BRANDON M. CRUZ, TRAVIS J. MATTHIESEN, NVX HOLDINGS, INC., CENTERBRIDGE PARTNERS, L.P., CCP III AIV VII HOLDINGS, L.P., CB BLIZZARD CO-INVEST HOLDINGS, L.P., BLIZZARD AGGREGATOR, LLC, CENTERBRIDGE ASSOCIATES III, L.P., CCP III CAYMAN GP LTD., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC. and MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-05765 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 28, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading registration statement in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering resulting to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a false and misleading Registration Statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial public offering (IPO). Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO: (i) the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of 2020; (ii) GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn as a result of its unique business model and limited carrier base; (iii) GoHealth suffered from degradations in customer persistency and retention as a result of elevated industry churn, vulnerabilities that arose from the Company's concentrated carrier business model, and GoHealth's efforts to expand into new geographies, develop new carrier partnerships and worsening product mix; (iv) GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable revenue sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and (v) these adverse financial and operational trends were internally projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO. Shortly after the IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock suffered significant price declines, and by September 15, 2020, GoHealth Class A common stock closed at just $12.53 per share--over 40% below the $21 per share price investors paid for the stock in the IPO less than two months previously. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful act and omissions, the Plaintiff and Class members suffered damages. GoHealth, Inc. is a health insurance company based in Chicago, Illinois. NVX Holdings, Inc. is a Chicago, Illinois-based investment company. Centerbridge Partners, L.P. is a New York-based private equity firm. CCP III AIV VII Holdings, L.P. is a limited partnership company created as an investment vehicle. CB Blizzard Co-Invest Holdings, L.P. is a limited partnership company created as an investment vehicle. Blizzard Aggregator, LLC is a limited liability company created as an investment vehicle. Centerbridge Associates III, L.P. is the general partner of CCP III AIV VII Holdings, L.P. and CB Blizzard Co-Invest Holdings, L.P. CCP III Cayman GP Ltd. is the general partner of Centerbridge Associates III, L.P. and the sole manager of Blizzard Aggregator, LLC. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company based in New York City. BofA Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm based in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is an investment management company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com - and – Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Kevin G. Cooper, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave., 9th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com GOL LINHAS AEREAS: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. ("Gol" or "the Company") (NYSE: GOL) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 14, 2019 and July 22, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 10, 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. Gol suffered from material weaknesses in its internal controls. The Company’s negative net working capital and net capital deficiency created doubt over its ability to exist as a going concern. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Gol, 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. [GN] GOOGLE INC: Canadian Provinces File Unlawful Data Collection Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lyle Adriano, writing for Insurance Business Canada, reports that lawyers across several Canadian provinces have filed proposed class action lawsuits, which allege that Google has been unlawfully collecting and selling off the personal information of Canadians without consent. The complaints allege that via Google Services, Google Ads and Google Analytics, the tech giant "turns Canadians' electronics into tracking devices, which it uses to build profiles on almost every internet user in Canada," said Luciana Brasil, partner at Branch MacMaster, in a press release announcing the lawsuits. The lawsuits, which name both Google and its parent company Alphabet as defendants, additionally allege that even people Google has no relationship with are affected by the company's information gathering. "There is no reason Canadians should tolerate what we say is extensive surveillance of their daily online activities, especially because Canada has laws specifically intended to protect them from such actions," Brasil added in a statement. The lawyers also accused Google of violating consumer protection and competition laws, by misrepresenting its own privacy and data practices to users. The lawsuits were filed in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. In an interview with IT World Canada, Brasil explained that even if a user has no relationship with Google -- a user that does not use the Chrome browser or Gmail, for instance -- information on their device can still be collected by a website that uses Google Analytics or Google Ads. "So, my computer is being told to do something by somebody with whom I have had no relationship, without my knowledge and without any opportunity to give consent. That to me is such a clear case. That flies in the face of the argument that there is always consent and people always know what is being provided," she said, adding that most people do not even know this type of privacy breach is happening in the background. "So why is that I should provide that information? It's not my job to help Google . . . They say it helps serve you better. It's not to serve me better. It's to find out what I do and to try to figure out what I want to buy and make suggestions to me," Brasil stated. "It's to try and extract a monetary value from (my) information." [GN] GRAND BRANDS: Drink Mixes Have Synthetic Flavor, Tedesco Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARY TEDESCO, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public v. GRAND BRANDS, INC., DBA TRUE CITRUS OR TRUE LEMON, Case No. 3:20-cv-01928-TWR-JLB (S.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought the Defendant for intentional and negligent misrepresentations, fraud by omission, breach of express and implied warranties, and violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and deceptive advertising and marketing of its drink-mix products, which contain synthetic flavoring chemical. The Products include True Lemon Original Lemonade, True Lemon Raspberry Lemonade, True Lemon Strawberry Lemonade and True Lime Black Cherry. The Products' front and back label representations of "Naturally Flavored," "Made from Real Lemons" or "Real Limes," with "No Artificial Sweeteners," and describes the product ingredients as "Crystallized Lemon" lead consumers, including the Plaintiff, to believe that they are naturally fruit-flavored drink mixes and healthier than other similar drink mixes. In reality, the Plaintiff alleges, each of the Products contains a synthetic flavoring chemical called dl-malic acid, which is not disclosed on the Products' front and back labels. As a result of the Defendant's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and Class members paid a premium price for the drink mixes, according to the complaint. Had they known the truth of the Defendant's misrepresentations, they would not have purchased the Products or would have paid less than they did. Grand Brands, Inc., doing business as True Lemon and True Citrus, is a manufacturer of drink mixes with its principal place of business located at 11501 Pocomoke Court, in Baltimore, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Elisa Pineda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 - and – David Elliot, Esq. ELLIOT LAW OFFICE, P.C. 3200 Fourth Avenue, Suite 207 San Diego, CA 92013 Telephone: (858) 228-7997 GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Sept. 23 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. GWRE Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9381&wire=1 Guidewire Software, Inc. (NYSE:GWRE) GWRE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 6, 2019 - March 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 23, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/guidewire-software-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=9381&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Guidewire Software, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) that Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs and catch up with rival systems; (3) that the Company's failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and unattainable. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 23 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Guidewire, Software, Inc. (NYSE: GWRE) investors that acquired shares between March 6, 2019 and March 4, 2020. Investors have until September 23, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. 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 lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's transition to the cloud was not going well; (2) Guidewire's cloud-based products needed to be improved to meet customer needs and catch-up with rival systems; (3) the Company's failed transition to the cloud was also hurting Guidewire's traditional on-premise business; and (4) as a result, Guidewire's revenue guidance, including guidance principally based on significantly increasing demand for the Company's cloud-based products, was baseless and unattainable. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 23, 2020. 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. [GN] HDFC BANK: Faces Class Action Suits Brought by 3 Law Firms ---------------------------------------------------------- moneycontrol.com reports that three US-based law firms have filed class action lawsuits against private lender HDFC Bank for allegedly engaging in false or "misleading" statements regarding its business, operational and compliance policies, and for its failure to inform investors about the bank's improper internal controls on vehicle loans. The lawsuits have been filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. [GN] HDFC BANK: Rosen Legal Files Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------- A law firm in the US has filed a class action suit against HDFC Bank, claiming damages for the losses incurred by investors because of "materially false and misleading" representations made by India's largest private sector lender. The suit by Rosen Legal specifically names the bank's managing director and chief executive Aditya Puri, his chosen successor Sashidhar Jagdishan and company secretary Santosh Haldnakar, who are the defendants in the suit, according to a copy of the complaint uploaded on the website. The complaint did not mention the exact amount of the damages sought, though it maintained that thousands of investors might have suffered. HDFC Bank could not be immediately reached for comment. According to the suit, bank officials "engaged in a plan, scheme, conspiracy and course of conduct, pursuant to which they knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit", resulting in the losses to investors. The allegations pertain to the vehicle finance vertical, where the bank later acknowledged to have found some improprieties which resulted in some executives being acted against. The bank had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, maintained improper lending practices in the vehicle financing making the operations unsustainable and all this was likely to have a negative impact on its financial condition and reputation, it alleged. [GN] HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Odyssey Transmission Issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Honda Odyssey transmission problems have caused a class action lawsuit that alleges 9-speed ZF 9HP automatic transmissions suffer from delayed shifting, loud noises while shifting, rough shifting, rough acceleration/deceleration and sudden power loss. The Honda transmission lawsuit includes all current and former owners or lessees who purchased or leased 2018-2019 Odyssey minivans equipped with 9-speed automatic transmissions. The plaintiffs who sued say Honda began equipping certain vehicles with 9-speed transmissions allegedly to increase fuel economy. But the class action alleges any improved fuel economy came at the expense of transmission problems. One of the plaintiffs says she purchased a new 2019 Honda Odyssey, but within the first few months the minivan experienced harsh or delayed shifting and engagement, delayed accelerations, banging into gear, hesitation, jerking, shuddering, lurching and a lack of power. The plaintiff says Honda hasn't been able to repair the Odyssey and she doesn't feel safe. According to the plaintiff, she returned the minivan to the dealership at 8,447 miles and told technicians the minivan jerked when accelerating below 40 mph. However, the technician drove the Odyssey and couldn't find anything wrong. No repairs were made and the minivan was returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff took the Odyssey minivan back to the dealership at 9,746 miles complaining the transmission jerked when accelerating from a stop. But again Honda said the Odyssey was working as designed, and it was returned to the customer. "During one service visit, Ms. Browning drove the vehicle accompanied by a service technician to demonstrate the problem. During the drive, the vehicle exhibited delayed acceleration followed by a bang, which the service technician acknowledged he heard. In response, the service technician kept the vehicle for further inspection and a software update. However, after each visit, Ms. Browning's vehicle was returned to her with no permanent repair." The plaintiff says she finally traded the Odyssey for a different vehicle, "at a large monetary loss." The lawsuit alleges multiple transmission problems cause unsafe conditions, not only to Odyssey occupants but to all others on the roads. The alleged transmission problems make it difficult to change lanes safely, make turns, merge into traffic and accelerate from stops at intersections. According to the class action, Honda has issued multiple technical service bulletins (TSBs) to dealers concerning the ZF 9HP transmission problems. Additionally, the plaintiffs say the automaker created a customer service campaign due to the transmissions, but Odyssey owners and lessees continue to experience problems with their minivans. The lawsuit also references a report from Road & Track Magazine which said the ZF 9HP transmission "uses an electronic shifter . . . [that] takes an eternity to engage drive, its shifts are clunky, and it's painfully slow to react to manual commands." Honda also allegedly refuses to extend the warranties or recall the Odysseys even though the automaker has knowledge of customer complaints, service campaigns, TSBs and dealer repair orders. The Honda Odyssey transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California: Browning, et al., v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Capstone Law APC, and Berger Montague PC. CarComplaints.com has complaints about the 2018 Honda Odyssey, 2019 Honda Odyssey and other Odyssey model years. [GN] IDS PROPERTY: MSP Recovery Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2020-016388-CA-01, was removed from the Florida Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 16, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-23842-UU to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff obtained assignments from Medicare Payers, including AvMed Inc., to recover payment that the Defendant failed to pay pursuant to its primary obligation. The Plaintiff is a shell litigation vehicle established by the Plaintiff's attorneys, whose business model is to seek Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement payments from private insurers like the Defendant. IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company operates as an insurance company. The Company offers property and casualty insurance services throughout the United States.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Edward M. Holt, Esq. MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C. 2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza 1900 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com - and - Ramon A. Abadin, Esq. RAMON A. ABADIN, P.A. 232 Andalusia, Suite 200 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 768-9839 E-mail: rabadin@abadinlaw.com INSPERITY INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 21 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded company. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. NSP Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=9381&wire=1 Insperity, Inc. (NYSE:NSP) NSP Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 11, 2019 - February 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : September 21, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/insperity-inc-loss-form?prid=9381&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Insperity, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (b) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (c) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (d) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] INSPERITY INC: Portnoy Law Advises of Sept. 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Insperity, Inc. (NYSE: NSP) investors that acquired shares between February 11, 2019 and February 11, 2020. Investors have until September 19, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, February 11, 2019 through February 11, 2020, Defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by Defendants: (i) the Company had failed to negotiate appropriate rates with its customers for employee benefit plans and did not adequately disclose the risk of large medical claims from these plans; (ii) Insperity was experiencing an adverse trend of large medical claims; (iii) as a mitigating measure, the Company would be forced to increase the cost of its employee benefit plans, causing stunted customer growth and reduced customer retention; and (iv) the foregoing issues were reasonably likely to, and would, materially impact Insperity's financial results. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 19, 2020. 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. [GN] LEXINFINTECH HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Reminds of Nov. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of LexinFintech Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ: LX) securities between December 21, 2017 and August 24, 2020 (the "Class Period") and purchasers or acquirers of LexinFintech American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to LexinFintech's December 21, 2017 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The LexinFintech class action lawsuit charges LexinFintech and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The first-filed case, captioned Solis v. LexinFintech Holdings Ltd., No. 20-cv-01562, is pending in the District of Oregon and is assigned to Judge Michael H. Simon. A second case was filed in the District of New Jersey, captioned Vela v. LexinFintech Holdings Ltd., No. 20-cv-12606, and is assigned to Judge Madeline Cox Arleo. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased LexinFintech securities during the Class Period and/or LexinFintech ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the LexinFintech class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the LexinFintech class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the LexinFintech class action lawsuit. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery of the LexinFintech class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the LexinFintech class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the LexinFintech class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact, Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the LexinFintech class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than November 9, 2020. LexinFintech, through its subsidiaries, operates as an online consumer finance platform for young professionals in the People’s Republic of China. On December 21, 2017, pursuant to its IPO, LexinFintech's ADSs began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol "LX." The LexinFintech class action lawsuit alleges that, during the Class Period and in the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) LexinFintech had reported artificially low delinquency rates; (ii) LexinFintech’s business model exposed shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) LexinFintech had exaggerated its user base; (iv) LexinFintech was facilitating direct peer-to-peer lending in contravention of Chinese law; (v) LexinFintech had engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions; (vi) LexinFintech lacked adequate internal controls; and (vii) as a result, defendants’ statements about LexinFintech’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On August 25, 2020, Grizzly Research published a report describing, among other things, how LexinFintech: (i) was reporting artificially low delinquency rates by giving borrowers in default new funds to make payments; (ii) had a business model that exposed shareholders to enormous losses; (iii) was still conducting direct peer-to-peer lending despite claiming otherwise, (iv) lacked internal controls; and (v) had conducted undisclosed related-party transactions. On this news, the price of LexinFintech shares fell more than 5.5%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action 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.[GN] LOCKHEED MARTIN: Mismanages Hazardous Toxins, Grayson Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- PHYLISS GRAYSON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION, Case No. 6:20-cv-01770 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for strict liability, public and private nuisance, negligence, willful and wanton conduct, and medical monitoring for continual screening and detection of illnesses, diseases, or disease processes. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged dangerous and reckless mismanagement of extremely hazardous toxins, including heavy metals, persistent environmental pollutants, and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) at its weapons manufacturing facilities at 5600 Sand Lake Road, in Orlando, Florida. The Defendant allegedly failed to carefully manage these extremely hazardous toxins from the moment they arrived at the Orlando Facility. According to the complaint, Lockheed Martin stored toxins in leaking storage tanks, collected and transported waste materials in leaking underground piping systems, and dumped thousands of tons of highly toxic waste sludges into trenches dug throughout the Orlando Facility. The severe and widespread soil and groundwater contamination at the Orlando Facility poses extreme risks to those who live and work nearby. The Plaintiff and Class Members have been and continue to be exposed to this contamination by activities that cause contaminated soils to become airborne and move offsite, according to the complaint. Moreover, the Defendant's efforts to treat contaminated soil and groundwater by installing numerous packed tower air strippers and air sparge systems and soil vapor extraction systems failed to contain the gaseous toxins extracted from the soil and groundwater treatment systems, instead they expelled concentrated amounts of these harmful chemicals directly into the air that the Plaintiff and Class Members breathe. Lockheed Martin Corporation is an American aerospace, defense, arms, security, and advanced technologies company, with its headquarters and principal place of business at 6801 Rockledge Drive, in Bethesda, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. Michael Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 418-2031 Facsimile: (407) 245-3384 E-mail: mmorgan@ForThePeople.com - and – Rene F. Rocha, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 400 Poydras St., Suite 1515 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 327-3018 E-mail: rrocha@ForThePeople.com - and – Frank M. Petosa, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 8151 Peters Road, 4th Floor Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 327-5366 Facsimile: (954) 327-3018 E-mail: fpetosa@ForThePeople.com - and – Michael F. Ram, Esq. Marie N. Appel, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 Facsimile: (415) 358-6923 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com mappel@forthepeople.com LOUISIANA: Court Grants Motion to Withdraw Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In class action lawsuit captioned as J.H., by and through his mother and next friend, N.H.; I.B., by and through his parents and next friends, A.B. and I.B., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JOHN BEL EDWARDS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA; THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; EDWARD DUSTIN BICKHAM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE LOUISIANA OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE; JAMES WOODS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE ACADIANA CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHANNON MATTHEWS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE BRIDGE CITY CENTER FOR YOUTH; SHAWN HERBERT, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT MONROE; and RODNEY WARD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE SWANSON CENTER FOR YOUTH AT COLUMBIA, Case No. 3:20-cv-00293-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge John W. DeGravelles entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw Motion for Class Certification; 2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff-Petitioners' Motion for Class Certification to Plaintiffs' right to re- urge the motion after discovery; 3. granting the Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) Motion to Defer or Deny OJJ Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Pending Discovery; 4. denying without prejudice Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment to OJJ's right to refile after the completion of discovery. 5. referring to the Magistrate Judge for a scheduling and discovery conference; and 6. denying as moot OJJ's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time in light of the other rulings. Louisiana is a southeastern U.S. state on the Gulf of Mexico. Its history as a melting pot of French, African, American and French-Canadian cultures is reflected in its Creole and Cajun cultures. A copy of the Court's Order is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/33nGAx6 at no extra charge.[CC] MORGAN STANLEY: December 12 Proof of Claim Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Before the SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION In the Matter of Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC; Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc.; and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-15982 SUMMARY DISTRIBUTION PLAN NOTICE OF MORGAN STANLEY FAIR FUND ESTABLISHED BY THE SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION ("SEC") If you purchased Eligible Certificates known as the certificates in the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC4 ("NC4") and/or the Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-HE7 ("HE7"), made on or before the date of the issuance of the first monthly remittance report issued to investors by the securities administrator for the Trust and not sold within that time-frame, you may be eligible for compensation. For NC4, the Eligible Purchase Period ends on June 29, 2007. For HE7, the Eligible Purchase Period ends on October 24, 2007. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY FROM THE MORGAN STANLEY FAIR FUND. THIS NOTICE CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. What this Case is About On July 24, 2014 the Commission issued an Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order ("Order") against Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC (f/k/a Morgan Stanley and Co. Incorporated), Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc., and Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings LLC (collectively "Morgan Stanley" or "Respondents"). The Order authorized the creation of a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended. The Commission charged Morgan Stanley and Co. LLC and its affiliates with misleading public disclosures regarding the number of delinquent loans in two subprime residential mortgage-backed securities transactions offered in 2007 - NC4 and HE7 (collectively, the "Trusts"), in violation of Sections 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Action of 1933 ("Securities Act"). As stated in the Order, Morgan Stanley failed to remove or accurately disclose loans with either current and/or historical delinquencies made in each transaction offering documents. Pursuant to the Order, Respondents paid disgorgement of $160,627,852, prejudgment interest of $17,995,437 and a civil money penalty of $96,376,711, for a total of $275,000,000 to be distributed to harmed investors. On February 6, 2015, Tax Administrator, Damasco & Associates, LLP, now known as Miller Kaplan Arase, LLP, was appointed to handle the tax obligations of the Fund. On February 4, 2016, the Commission entered an Order appointing Garden City Group, LLC ("GCG") now known as Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions ("Epiq") as the Fund Plan Administrator to assist in developing a Distribution Plan to distribute monies in the Fair Fund to investors harmed by the violations alleged in the Order. The SEC approved the Plan in its entirety on June 30, 2020. Who is Eligible for Compensation To qualify for a payment from the Fair Fund, you must have purchased Eligible Certificates before the date of the issuance of the first monthly remittance report issued to investors by the securities administrator for the Trust and not sold before June 29, 2007 in the NC4 Trust and not before October 24, 2007 in the HE7 Trust as described in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund's website at www.MSFairFund.com. Instructions for Submitting a Proof of Claim Form You must complete and sign the Proof of Claim form and submit it to the Fund Plan Administrator no later than December 12, 2020 at the address or email address listed below in order to be eligible to recover from the Fair Fund: Morgan Stanley Fund P.O. Box 9349 Dublin, OH 43017-4249 Questions@MSFairFund.com If you have any questions, or if you would like to receive a Proof of Claim Form in the mail, you may call (855) 907-3235 in the United States, send an email to Questions@MSFairFund.com, or visit www.MSFairFund.com. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased NNOX securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Nano-X Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the Complaint, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X’s commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X’s statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published a report entitled, "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market - Theranos 2.0", which summarized Nano-X as "nothing more than a science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond the realm of possibility." On this news, Nano-X’s stock price fell $12.41 per share, or more than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80 per share on September 16, 2020, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 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 Nano-X securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nanoximagingltd-nnox-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-308/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. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Announces Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 Eastern District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased Nano-X Imaging Ltd. (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On September 15, 2020, Citron Research ("Citron") published the report entitled, "Nano-X Imaging (NNOX) A Complete Farce on the Market - Theranos 2.0" (the "Citron Report"). The Citron Report summarized Nano-X as "this $3 billion company is nothing more than a science project with a simple rendering, minimal R&D, fake customers, no FDA approval, and fraudulent claims that are beyond the realm of possibility." On this news, Nano-X's stock price fell $12.41 per share, or more than 25%, over the next two trading days to close at $36.80 per share on September 16, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X’s commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X’s statements regarding its "novel" Nanox System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration admitted the Nanox System was not original; and (4) 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. If you purchased Nano-X securities during the Class Period and suffered a loss, 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 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] NANO-X IMAGING: 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 Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) securities during the period from August 21, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Nano-X’s commercial agreements and its customers were fabricated; (2) Nano-X’s statements regarding its "novel" Nano-X System were misleading as the Company never provided data comparing its images with images from competitors’ machines; (3) Nano-X’s submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") admitted the Nano-X System was not original; and (4) 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. If you acquired Nano-X 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 this 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. [GN] NANO-X IMAGING: Schall Law Announces Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nano-X Imaging Ltd. ("Nano-X" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: NNOX) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 21, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before November 16, 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. Nano-X fabricated its supposed commercial agreements with customers. The Company’s statements about its "novel" Nanox System were misleading and it failed to present data comparing the system to competitors' systems. In fact, the Company’s submission to the FDA admitted its system was not original. Based on these facts, the Company’s public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Nano-X, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] NAT'L HOCKEY: Former Kamloops Blazers' Forward Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press/Kamloops This Week reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit alleges some of North America's most powerful hockey leagues are conspiring to limit opportunities for young players. The claim was filed by Kobe Mohr, a 21-year-old Lloydminster, Alta., man who played for four teams in the Western Hockey League from 2015 to 2020. The NHL, WHL, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, American Hockey League, ECHL and Hockey Canada are listed as defendants. The suit alleges the defendants participated in "an unlawful conspiracy, arrangement or agreement" to limit opportunities for Mohr and other Canadians to make a living playing pro hockey between the ages of 18 and 20. The document claims the defendants have created a system where the overwhelming majority of players will never reach the top pro leagues, instead spending years playing for "nominal sums of money, all to the financial advantage of the defendants." None of the allegations has been proven in court and the lawsuit still needs to be certified by the courts to become a class-action. No statements of defence have been filed. The AHL declined to comment, while a CHL spokesman said the league has not yet been served with a statement of claim. None of the other organizations mentioned in the lawsuit was able to immediately provide a comment. The suit points to another structure of hockey in Europe and Russia, where pro clubs can sign young players to pro contracts and assign them to junior or reserve teams. "Overall, Canadian-based players that are playing in major junior leagues have substantially less choices and freedom, if any, than European-based players, who have the opportunity to play in the AHL or ECHL before reaching the age of 20 and be paid a salary negotiated by a professional association," the suit states. The suit alleges the NHL and their teams pay bonuses to major junior clubs when their players are drafted, creating an unlawful arrangement between the defendants. In May, the Canadian Hockey League settled three class-action lawsuits filed by current and former junior players seeking backpay for minimum wage. The settlements amounted to a total of $30 million. Mikael Lalancette, a Montreal-based hockey reporter, tweeted each CHL team, including the Blazers, must pay $266,667 as its share of the settlement. Blazers' president Don Moores was asked for comment, but told KTW there is a ban on discussing the settlement publicly. The CHL has always considered major junior players -- typically ranging from 16 to 20 years old -- student athletes. Players are currently eligible for post-secondary school scholarships, with each season spent in the league being worth one year of tuition, books and compulsory fees. Players also get money for out-of-pocket expenses, equipment, billeting and travel costs while on a CHL roster. [GN] NIALL INC: Faces Lora Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO LORA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NIALL, INC. d/b/a LILY FLANAGAN'S PUB and NIALL B. CROWE, Case No. 2:20-cv-04514 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for their violation of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendants as a kitchen helper from February 1, 2019, to December 5, 2019, alleges that the Defendants required him to work at least 71 hours per week without paying his overtime rate of pay at one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for each hour he worked in excess of 40 per week. Moreover, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff's spread of hours pay and failed to provide the Plaintiff with accurate and/or complete wage statements on each pay day. Niall, Inc. d/b/a Lily Flanagan's Pub, operates as a pub at 345 Deer Park Avenue, in Babylon, New York, owned by Defendant Niall B. Crowe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis M. Leon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Tel: (212) 583-7400 E-mail: LLeon@Cafaroesq.com NIKOLA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the securities of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NKLA) between June 4, 2020 and September 9, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Nikola securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Nikola Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Nikola's founder, Trevor Milton, materially misrepresented the Company's technology and business. The Company's profitability and business prospects were massively overstated. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research issued a report titled: "Nikola: How to parlay an Ocean of Lies into a Partnership with the Largest Auto OEM in America." In that report Hindenburg claimed that it "gathered extensive evidence--including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs detailing dozens of false statements by the Company's founder Trevor Milton." On this news the Company's stock price fell during intraday trading on September 10, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 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 Nikola securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/nikolacorporation-nkla-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-307/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. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Bragar Eagel Announces Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of investors that purchased Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report"). The Hindenburg Report suggested that the firm had gathered extensive evidence on false statements made by Nikola’s founder Trevor Milton, including that Milton misrepresented, the Company’s battery and fuel cell technology and the size of the Company’s order book. Moreover, the Hindenburg Report claimed that Milton used these Misrepresentations to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies. On this news, Nikola’s stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.3%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020. The complaint, filed on September 16, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. If you purchased Nikola securities 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. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Tel No: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com [GN] NIKOLA CORP: 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 District of Arizona on behalf of those who acquired Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) securities during the period from March 3, 2020 through September 15, 2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until November 16, 2020 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. If you acquired NKLA 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 this 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. [GN] NIKOLA CORP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Nikola Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW), f/k/a VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: VTIQ, VTIQW, VTIQU), between March 3, 2020 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Nikola investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Nikola class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.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) VectoIQ did not engage in proper due diligence regarding its merger with Nikola; (2) Nikola overstated its "in-house" design, manufacturing, and testing capabilities; (3) Nikola overstated its hydrogen production capabilities; (4) as a result, Nikola overstated its ability to lower the cost of hydrogen fuel; (5) Nikola founder and Executive Chairman, Trevor Milton, tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Company’s Nikola Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola employees, including Mr. Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated; (7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a result, defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by a market research firm. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 16, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1943.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm’s attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] NIKOLA CORPORATION: Pomerantz Law Firm Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NKLA) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-04354, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise, acquired Nikola securities between June 4, 2020, and September 9, 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 Nikola securities during the class period, you have until November 16, 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. Nikola purports to operate as an integrated zero-emissions transportation systems provider. The Company purports to design and manufacture battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles, electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The Company also purports to develop electric vehicle solutions for military and outdoor recreational applications. Nikola was founded in 2015 by Defendant Trevor Milton ("Milton"), and in June 2020, the Company's securities began trading publicly after the execution of a reverse merger with VectoIQ Acquisition Corp. 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) Defendant Milton had repeatedly misrepresented and/or exaggerated Nikola's financial, technological, and operational profile; (ii) the foregoing misrepresentations were intended to, and did, present a materially false image of the Company's growth and success, thereby artificially inflating the Company's stock price; (iii) the foregoing misrepresentations were foreseeably likely to subject the Company to enhanced regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement, along with reputational harm when the truth came to light; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 10, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report entitled, "Nikola: How to Parlay An Ocean of Lies Into a Partnership With the Largest Auto OEM in America" (the "Hindenburg Report" or the "Report"). Asserting that it had gathered "extensive evidence—including recorded phone calls, text messages, private emails, and behind-the-scenes photographs," Hindenburg represented that it had identified "dozens of false statements by" Milton, which had led Hindenburg to conclude that Nikola "is an intricate fraud built on dozen of lies over the course of . . . Milton's career." Defendant Milton made these misrepresentations, the Report asserted, to substantially grow the Company and secure partnerships with top auto companies. On this news, Nikola's stock price fell $4.80 per share, or 11.33%, to close at $37.57 per share on September 10, 2020. Then, on September 14, 2020, after the market had closed, Bloomberg reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating Nikola to assess the merits of the Hindenburg Report. Finally, on September 15, 2020, during intra-day trading, the Wall Street Journal reported that the United States Department of Justice had joined the SEC's investigation of Nikola. On this news, Nikola's stock fell an additional $0.17 per share during intra-day trading, to close at $32.83 on September 15, 2020, an 8.27% decline from its previous close on September 14, 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. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP Tel No: 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com [GN] OLD DOMINION: Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Flips Gravitystorm Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, GRAVITYSTORM, LLC, Appellant, v. OLD DOMINION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee, Case No. 4D20-295 (Fla. Dist. App.), the District Court of Appeal of Florida for the Fourth District reversed the order compelling appraisal and dismissing the Appellant's putative class action. Gravitystorm, the Insured, appealed an order compelling appraisal and dismissing its putative class action. It argued that there is no appraisable issue because the only dispute involves a question of law that the trial court must resolve. The issue raised in the Insured's amended complaint is whether title and registration transfer fees must be included in the "actual cash value" paid for a vehicle declared a total loss. The Appellate Court agrees with the Insured that it is a question of policy interpretation for the Court, not a disputed issue of fact about the "amount of loss" for appraisal. Similarly, the insurer has not shown that disagreement about the precise amount of fees is an appraisable factual issue, rather than a pure legal question based upon statutory interpretation. Accordingly, it reversed the order compelling appraisal and dismissing the action, and remanded for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybe4wtth from Leagle.com. Jacob L. Phillips -- firm@normandpllc.com -- and Edmund A. Normand of Normand PLLC, Orlando, Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A., Aventura, Andrew J. Shamis and Garrett O. Berg of Shamis & Gentile P.A., Miami, and Rachel Dapeer of Dapeer Law P.A., Miami, for appellant. Michael Menapace -- mmenapace@wiggin.com -- of Wiggin and Dana LLP, Hartford, CT, and Cynthia G. Angelos -- info@jangeloslaw.com -- of Law Offices of Cynthia G. Angelos P.A., Port St. Lucie, for appellee. ONESPAN INC: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges OneSpan Inc. (NASDAQ: OSPN) investors to submit their losses now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: May 9, 2018 - Aug. 11, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/OSPN Contact An Attorney Now: OSPN@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 OneSpan Inc. (OSPN) Securities Class Action: The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants misrepresented and concealed that: (i) OneSpan had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures 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 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; and (v) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company's financial results and reputation. The market allegedly began to learn the truth on Aug. 4, 2020, when OneSpan postponed its Q2 2020 earnings release and conference call by 1 week, blaming the delay on prior period revenue recognition problems relating to certain software license contracts. Then, according to the complaint, on Aug. 11, 2020, OneSpan (1) announced it would not timely file its Q2 2020 financial statements on Form 10-Q with the SEC, (2) revealed the revenue recognition problems stretched from Q1 2018 through Q1 2019, (3) reported that same quarter year-over-year revenues had declined, and (4) withdrew its FY 2020 earnings guidance. On this news, OneSpan's common share price fell $12.36 per share, or nearly 40%. Most recently, on Aug. 14, 2020, the company filed its Form 10-Q revealing that it (1) overstated its current contract assets for the fiscal year-ended Dec. 31, 2019 by about 34%, and (2) understated net losses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2019. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving OneSpan intentionally cooked its books," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a OneSpan investor, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding OneSpan should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email OSPN@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com [GN] PARTY CITY: McInnis Sues Over Illegal Collection of Fingerprints ---------------------------------------------------------------- WILLEY MCINNIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PARTY CITY CORPORATION, Case No. 2020L001103 (Ill. Cir., DuPage Cty., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant disregards the statutorily protected privacy rights of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated employees by unlawfully collecting, obtaining, storing, disseminating, and using their biometric data. Specifically, the Defendant violated and continues to violate BIPA because it did not and continues not to: (a) properly inform the Plaintiff and Class members in writing of the specific purpose and length of time for which their fingerprints were being collected, obtained, stored, and used; (b) provide a publicly available retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying their fingerprints; nor (c) receive a written release from Plaintiff or the members of the Class to collect, capture, or otherwise obtain fingerprints. Party City Corporation is an owner and operator of a party supply store in Naperville, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Fish, Esq. Mara Baltabols, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 778-0400 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com mara@fishlawfirm.com PEABODY ENERGY: OK Firefighters PRS Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION, GLENN L. KELLOW, and AMY B. SCHWETZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-08024 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 resulting to the decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is a securities class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities, who purchased or otherwise acquired Peabody common stock from April 3, 2017, through October 28, 2019, inclusive. According to the complaint, on April 3, 2017, the start of the Class Period, Peabody emerged from bankruptcy protection and reported record production output, while simultaneously touting the Company's "record safety" achievements and its "ongoing commitment to ensuring safe, productive operations." However, unknown to the market at that time, the Defendants failed to disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts pertaining to the safety practices at the Company's North Goonyella mine, which were privately known to or recklessly disregarded by the Defendants: (a) The Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous combustion event; (b) The Company failed to follow its own safety procedures; and (c) As a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a heightened risk of shutdown. The truth about Peabody's inadequate safety practices was revealed when, on September 28, 2018, a fire erupted at the mine, forcing Peabody to suspend operations indefinitely. Following the fire, the Defendants assured the market that the Company had a feasible plan to remediate and reopen the North Goonyella mine, and that it would be able to extract significant coal at the mine in the near-term, the suit says. Further, the truth about the said feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart operations at North Goonyella was revealed through a series of disclosures. The latest one was on October 29, 2019, wherein Peabody disclosed that the Queensland Mines Inspectorate was placing strict restrictions on restarting operations at the North Goonyella mine and that as a result Peabody was forced to drastically adjust the reentry plan, ultimately announcing a three-year or more delay before any meaningful coal could be produced. On this news, Peabody shares declined $3.56 per share, or 22 percent. Headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, Peabody Energy Corp. is the largest private sector coal company in the world. Its primary business consists of the mining, sale, and distribution of coal, which is purchased for use in electricity generation and steelmaking.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Keller, Esq. Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com ebelfi@labaton.com fmcconville@labaton.com PEACH STATE: Faces Oliver FCRA Suit Over Use of Consumer Report --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL OLIVER, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PEACH STATE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION f/k/a GWINNETT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:20-cv-03842-SCJ-RGV (N.D. Ga., Sept. 16, 2020), is a consumer class action arising from the Defendant's violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, on August 14, 2020, the Defendant confirmed with the Plaintiff that he had accepted a Help Desk Support Specialist position in its Lawrenceville, Georgia corporate office and that his employment was contingent on the background check. On August 18, 2020, the Defendant obtained a consumer report on Mr. Oliver from Vericon Resources, a consumer reporting agency. Due to the results of the background check, the Defendant rescinded Mr. Oliver's job offer and had not provided him with a copy of the consumer report and a written description of his rights under the FCRA, before taking such alleged action, according to the complaint. When the Plaintiff received the consumer report days later directly from Vericon Resources, he discovered that the consumer report contained inaccurate information that made him appear to have a criminal record that did not belong to him. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant systematically violates Section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by using consumer reports to take adverse employment action without, beforehand, proving him, as the subject of the report, sufficient and timely notification and a copy of the complete report and summary of rights under the FCRA. Peach State Federal Credit Union is a financial cooperative serving members throughout Georgia and South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 205-5029 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com PNC MERCHANT: Wins Dismissal of Choi's Beer Suit Over Annual Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, CHOI'S BEER SHOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PNC MERCHANT SERVICES COMPANY, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-5768 (FB) (CLP) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Frederic Block of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Plaintiff Choi's Beer brings the breach of contract class action against PNC. The class action complaint alleges that in July 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to provide payment processing services. The contract states that the Defendant may charge a reasonable annual fee with 30 days' notice to offset various internal costs. According to the complaint, the Defendant, in breach of the contract, assessed an unreasonable fee with less than 30 days' notice. On Sept. 3, 2019, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would be charging an annual fee in the amount of $109.95. On Sept. 21, 2019, less than 30 days later, the annual fee was assessed and, on Oct. 2, 2019, the annual fee was withdrawn from the Plaintiff's account. The Plaintiff alleges that the fee was unreasonable and only charged to pad the Defendant's bottom line. The contract also requires the Plaintiff to provide notice of any disputed fees within 60 days of the fee being assessed. On Oct. 9, 2019, the Plaintiff mailed notice to the Defendant disputing its 2019 annual fee. Two days later, it filed the class action complaint, alleging the Defendant assesses the same annual fee on all customers. On Oct. 16, 2019, the Defendant refunded the 2019 fee to the Plaintiff's account. It now moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). It contends that the refund renders the action moot because the Plaintiff does not allege any damages other than the $109.95 fee. Judge Block agrees as he can no longer can grant any effectual relief. The Plaintiff puts forth two arguments in opposition -- neither of which are persuasive. First, the Plaintiff argues that the refund was unsolicited and, therefore, should not impact the relief requested. However, it certainly "solicited" a refund by sending notice disputing the fee. Second, the Plaintiff argues that its request for declaratory and injunctive relief must survive. However, these requests are premised on speculation that the Defendant will assess unreasonable fees in the future, says the Court. Speculative requests for injunctive or declaratory relief do not confer standing. Accordingly, the Defendant refund renders the Plaintiff's claim moot and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, rules Judge Block. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Sept. 9, 2020 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yagfr6bj from Leagle.com. E. ADAM WEBB, ESQ. -- Contact@WebbLLC.com -- WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC, Atlanta, GA, for the Plaintiff. JUSTIN J. KONTUL, ESQ. -- jkontul@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for the Defendants. PORTLAND GENERAL: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following publicly traded company. Shareholders who purchased shares in the following company during the dates listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. Portland General Electric Company (NYSE:POR) Investors Affected : April 24, 2020 - August 24, 2020 A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in Portland General Electric Company. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) PGE lacked effective internal controls over its energy trading practices; (2) 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)as a result, the Company was reasonably likely to incur significant losses; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders may find more information at https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/portland-general-electric-company-loss-submission-form/?id=9409&from=1 The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] POSITIVE LIVING: Settles Privacy Class Action Suit for $1.2MM ------------------------------------------------------------- citynews1130.com reports that a Vancouver-based class-action lawsuit involving a breach of privacy for people with HIV has been settled for more than $1 million. The lawsuit was launched on behalf of 796 members of the Positive Living Society, an agency that offered support to people living with HIV/AIDs. In September, 2016, a mass email was directed to members asking them if they'd like to take part in UBC research. That mass email failed to 'blind copy' other recipients' email addresses, thus revealing the identity of other members, and in essence, their HIV status. The settlement sees $1.2 million paid out by the Positive Living Society, as well as UBC -- which was undertaking a study when the email was released -- and the Providence Health Care Society. Plaintiffs will receive about $1,000 each. Positive Living delivered a letter of apology to those involved in the lawsuit in the spring. The Positive Living Society closed its doors permanently in March, saying revenue for the society had been declining for the last couple of years. [GN] REINSURANCE GROUP: Fails to Provide Consumer Report, Sanders Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN SANDERS, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REINSURANCE GROUP OF AMERICA INCORPORATED, Case No. 4:20-cv-01305 (E.D. Mo., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant offered the Plaintiff a full-time job as a Senior Security Risk Analyst on April 20, 2020, which the Plaintiff immediately accepted and on the same day, he signed a background check authorization from Griffin Personnel Group, who is a consumer reporting agency. Unfortunately, the Plaintiff did not pass the background check. When the Plaintiff was called by the Defendant to a meeting on May 15, 2020, to inform him about the result, the Defendant, however, did not provide him a copy of the consumer report nor was he given any explanation why he was being denied the employment. The FCRA provides that any person "using a consumer report for employment purposes" who intends to take any "adverse action based in whole or in part on the report," must provide the consumer with a copy of the report and a written description of the consumer's rights under the FCRA. Reinsurance Group of America Incorporated conducts background checks on applicants for employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Jason Brown, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. BROWN & WATKINS LLC 301 S. US 169 Hwy. Gower, MO 64454 Tel: 816-505-4529 Fax: 816-424-1337 E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com Watkins@brownandwatkins.com - and – Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq. Andrew L. Weiner, Esq. WEINER & SAND LLC 800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 Tel: 404-205-5029 Tel: 404-254-0842 Fax: 866-800-1482 E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Monopolizes Auto Card Shufflers, Giuliano Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED T. GIULIANO, as Liquidation Trustee for RIH ACQUISITIONS NJ, LLC dba THE ATLANTIC CLUB CASINO HOTEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION; BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a SHFL ENTERTAINMENT or SHUFFLE MASTER; and BALLY GAMING, INC. d/b/a BALLY TECHNOLOGIES f/k/a BALLY GAMING AND SYSTEMS f/k/a SHFL ENTERTAINMENT, INC. f/k/a SHUFFLE MASTER, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-05262 (N.D. Ill., Sept. 4, 2020), alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are engaged in the monopolization of the market for automatic card shufflers used at casinos through the Defendants' abuse of the patent system and judicial process to exclude and drive out competitors from the market. According to the complaint, the Defendants procured patents by fraud and then asserted those patents in sham lawsuits against competitors, which effectively excluded competitors from the market and caused the Plaintiff and others similarly situated to pay more for automated card shufflers than they otherwise would have in a competitive market. The Plaintiff, a direct purchaser of automated card shufflers, and others like it have suffered as a result of the Defendants' monopolization and exclusion of competitors, forcing their direct customers--purchasers and lessees to pay supracompetitive prices for automated card shufflers while the Defendants collect monopoly rents. Scientific Games Corporation provides gambling products and services. The Company offers technology platforms, robust systems, engaging game content, and related marketing solutions. Scientific Games serves customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon M. McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C. 120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeny@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com sstein@hausfeld.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. Jeanette Bayoumi, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP Broad Financial Center 33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1195 Facsimile: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com jbayoumi@hausfeld.com SEACOAST COMMERCE: Filings on EFSC Sale Lack Info, Parshall Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SEACOAST COMMERCE BANC HOLDINGS, ALLAN W. ARENDSEE, RICHARD M. SANBORN, DAVID H, BARTRAM, LISA M. BETYAR, ROBERT DEPHILIPPIS, IRVING FELDKAMP, RICHARD S. LEVENSON, TIMOTHY K. O'CONNOR, B. TED FIELD, ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP., ENTERPRISE BANK & TRUST, and SEACOAST COMMERCE BANK, Case No. 1:20-cv-01300-UNA (D. Del., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of Seacoast Commerce by Enterprise Financial Services Corp. On August 20, 2020, Seacoast's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Enterprise, Enterprise Bank & Trust, and Seacoast Commerce Bank, pursuant to which Seacoast's stockholders including the Plaintiff will receive 0.5061 shares of Enterprise common stock for each share of Seacoast common stock they own. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially misleading Recommendation Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 11, 2020, wherein the statement omits material information concerning the proposed transaction. The omissions and false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement are material in that a reasonable stockholder will consider them important in deciding how to vote on the proposed transaction, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the Recommendation Statement: a) fails to disclose the financial and operating forecasts and projections of Seacoast; b) omits material information regarding the analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc.; and c) fails to disclose whether the Company entered into any confidentiality agreements that contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions. Seacoast Commerce Banc Holdings is a bank holding company with one wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Seacoast Bank. Enterprise Bank & Trust is a Missouri state-chartered trust company with banking powers, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Enterprise Financial Services Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: 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 Telephone: (484) 324-6800 Facsimile: (484) 631-1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com SLING TV: Web Site Is Inaccessible to Blind, Monegro Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANKIE MONEGRO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SLING TV L.L.C., Case No. 1:20-cv-07832 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired, legally blind person and is dependent on screen-reading software when reading website content using his computer. He alleges that the Defendant's website, http://www.sling.com/,is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. According to the complaint, when the Plaintiff visited the Defendant's website on multiple occasions, the last occurring in September 2020, to make a purchase, the Plaintiff has encountered multiple access barriers and was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The website allegedly lack of a variety of features and accommodations which effectively barred the Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific products were offered for sale. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant purportedly engaged in acts of intentional discrimination because it failed to comply with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines, thereby, failing to provide the Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to its Website similar to that of a sighted individual. Sling TV L.L.C. is a streaming service company.[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 E-mail: dforce@steinsakslegal.com STAAR SURGICAL: Hagens Berman Reminds of October 19 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman urges STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA) investors to contact the firm now. A securities fraud class action has been filed and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Feb. 26, 2020 - Aug. 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Oct. 19, 2020 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/STAA Contact An Attorney Now: STAA@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 STAAR Surgical Company (STAA) Securities Class Action: According to the complaint, STAAR and senior management repeatedly overstated and/or mischaracterized (1) the company's sales and growth in China, (2) its marketing spend, and (3) its research and development expenditures. Investors began to learn the truth, according to the complaint, after the markets closed on Aug. 5, 2020, when STAAR reported disappointing Q2 2020 sales and a net loss versus net income for the prior year second quarter. In addition, the company revealed its massive- and growing- exposure to a single distributor in China who accounted for 53% of Q2 2020 net sales versus 49% for the year-earlier quarter, and who accounted for 57% of trade receivables versus 43% for Q1 2020. Then, on Aug. 11, 2020, research firm J Capital published a scathing report calling STAAR's China success story into serious question. More specifically, J Capital accused the company of overstating its sales in China by at least one-third (or $21.6 mln), "meaning all of the company's $14 mln in 2019 profit is fake." The report – based on over 75 interviews with former employees, site visits to China and Switzerland, and extensive review of public documents – concludes STAAR reports fake sales revenues by overstating sales and then marking up actual marketing costs to hide "phantom" revenue. J Capital also found STAAR's largest China client bought only about half the lenses STAAR reported. These events caused the price of STAAR shares to sharply decline. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving STAAR cooked its books by inflating its China sales," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a STAAR investor, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding STAAR should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email STAA@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with nine offices in eight cities around the country and eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] STAAR SURGICAL: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against STAAR Surgical Company ("STAAR" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:STAA) for violations of Sec10(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 26, 2020 and August 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before October 19, 2020.[GN] STANTEC INC: Annapolis Citizens Sue Over Illegal Water Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- ANNAPOLIS CITIZENS CLASS OVERCHARGED FOR WATER-SEWER by LOUDON OPERATIONS LLC, Putative Class representatives v. STANTEC, Inc., Annapolis Water/Sewer Contractor aka Stantec Archit, Inc., Stantec Consulting Ltd.; and GHD, Inc, Annapolis Water/Sewer Contractor, aka GHD Pty Ltd, GHD Prop. LLC, DVO, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-02603-BAH (D.D.C., Sept. 16, 2020), is brought behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated arising from the Defendants' practice of overcharging water customers of Annapolis, Maryland, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants overcharged Annapolis water customers at a rate of $10.11 per 1000 gallons--7 times that of affluent Long Island at $1.45 per 1000 gallons, and 5 times that of water-scarce Albuquerque, NY, $2.23 per 1000 gallons. Rate-making by the City of Annapolis is influenced and incited by its wastewater and water treatment contractors and Defendants, Stantec and GHD. Both Stantec and GHD have impelled the City to impose a multiplier levy for higher use for homeowners, who choose to water their lawns or keep their swimming pools full by an outrageous penalty rate. The Defendants allegedly compound this price gouging by imposing arbitrary tariffs for wastewater treatment, surcharging for sewer usage a random indiscriminate multiple of 1-2 times water usage rates. The Defendants, multi-billion-dollar multinational Canadian and Australian water treatment and wastewater contractors, coaxed and incentivized the City of Annapolis to boost water rates repeatedly and contrived outrageous water charges, with the premeditated motive to recapture funds to pay for their redundant construction charges for unnecessary and costly replacement of water treatment and wastewater treatment plants, the suit says. Plaintiff Loudon Operations LLC, representing Annapolis Citizens Class Overcharged for Water-Sewer, is the operating subsidiary of D.C. professional corporation law firm of Lillard & Lillard, P.C. Stantec, Inc. is a Canadian-based waterworks and wastewater engineering and consulting firm with 400 locations across six continents. GHD Pty Ltd. (formerly known as Gutteridge Haskins & Davey) is an Australian-based waterworks and wastewater engineering and environmental consulting firm. The Plaintiffs, respectfully as, by, and through putative class representatives, appear pro se.[BN] SUPER BREAD II: Bid to Quash Filed in Fuentes Suit -------------------------------------------------- A Motion to Quash has been filed in the class action lawsuit styled as Fuentes Fuentes, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Super Bread II, Corp., Super Cakes Corp, doing business as: Super Bread and Super Cakes Bakery, Defendant, H&S Bakery, Inc., Movant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02826-DKC (D., Md., Sept. 29, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Labor: Fair Standards. Super Bread II Corporation produces and distributes bakery products.[BN] The Movant is represented by: David William Kinkopf, Esq. Gallagher Evelius and Jones LLP 218 N Charles St Ste 400 Baltimore, MD 21201 Tel: (410) 727-7702 Fax: (410) 468-2786 Email: dkinkopf@gejlaw.com - and - Jared Samuel Dvornicky, Esq. US District Court 1502 Marshall St Baltimore, MD 21230 Tel: (215) 285-6377 Email: jdvornicky@gejlaw.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over 8-Speed Transmission Issues ----------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that Toyota 8-speed transmission problems have caused a lawsuit that includes Toyota Highlander and Toyota Sienna vehicles equipped with direct shift 8AT transmissions. According to the lawsuit, the 8-speed transmission, also known as the UA80, causes harsh or delayed shifting, delayed acceleration, hesitation, jerking, unintended acceleration, lurching and excessive revving before upshifting. The 8-speed transmission problems allegedly occur in 2017-present Highlanders and Siennas, and the plaintiffs who sued claim Toyota has actively concealed defects in the 8AT transmissions. The lawsuit says that since their release in the 2017 model year, the Toyota Sienna and certain Toyota Highlanders have been equipped with Toyota's UA80 transmissions. The plaintiffs claim the automaker also uses specific model numbers UA80E and UA80F for the 8-speed transmissions. In addition, UA80 is used for 6-cylinder vehicles and UB80 is the designation used for 4-cylinder vehicles, and UA80E is the model number for transmissions in forward-wheel-drive Highlanders and Siennas. UA80F is the model number for transmissions in all-wheel-drive Highlanders and Siennas. Florida plaintiffs Dennis and Deborah Murphy purchased a new 2018 Highlander XL and within a week the vehicle allegedly experienced "hesitation and surging when driving at low speeds, in stop-and-go traffic and when accelerating to join a traffic flow." In September 2018 when the vehicle had about 2,000 miles on the odometer, the plaintiffs took the vehicle to a Toyota dealership which performed diagnostic tests and found the vehicle was performing normally. In January 2019 with about 8,730 miles on the odometer, Mr. Murphy took the vehicle to a Toyota dealership and complained the vehicle "demonstrated erratic throttle responses at low speeds, hesitating and exhibiting surges when lightly applying the throttle at parking lot speeds." The dealer allegedly couldn't find any problems with the Highlander and therefore no repairs were made. In April 2019, Mr. Murphy returned the vehicle to the dealership and again told technicians the vehicle was "demonstrating erratic throttle responses, stumbling and surging at low speeds." The dealership couldn't find any problems, but the lawsuit alleges a senior technical service adviser admitted the 8-speed transmission problems "were common to Highlanders and other Toyota models and were well-known to Toyota and its dealers." Then in May 2019, Mr. Murphy returned to the dealership and complained about continued transmission problems, telling dealer technicians the vehicle needed to be repaired, or Toyota should buy back the vehicle. The dealership performed no tests or repairs, but the plaintiff was told a Toyota representative needed to inspect the vehicle, something that occurred when the vehicle had about 11,930 miles on the odometer. A "Toyota District 2 Fixed Operations Manager" test drove the vehicle but made no repairs, reporting that he "found it to perform like a known good vehicle" and did "not exhibit any warrantable concern." "[T]oday's vehicles . . . are driven by wire which means they do not have a throttle cable so they may exhibit very slight lag due to the ECM processing. The current eight speeds transmissions are gear to keep the engine in an optimum operating condition which may not meet the customers desired performance but in every case, a little extra pressure on the gas pedal improves responsiveness and customer satisfaction can usually be obtained." - Toyota manager In October 2019, the plaintiffs took their vehicle to a different Toyota dealership and again complained about "erratic throttle responses at low speeds, stumbling, and exhibiting surges when lightly applying the throttle at low speeds." The Toyota technician allegedly said the 8-speed transmission problems were "caused by: internal failure on transaxle assembly" and consequently "replaced [the] transaxle assembly and associated parts per bulletin T-SB-0160-18." However, the plaintiffs claim the Highlander continues to hesitate and surge when driving at low speeds, in stop-and-go traffic and when accelerating to join a traffic flow. And adding to their problems, the plaintiffs allege the vehicle is even worse now since the transmission transaxle assembly was replaced. The class action lawsuit references technical service bulletins (TSBs) Toyota issued to dealerships concerning the 8-speed transmissions. Toyota issued T-SB-0187-17 in February 2017, titled "High RPM Shift Point," which said some 2017 Sienna vehicles may experience the following conditions: -- Lack of power from stop -- High RPM shift points at 2 - 3 shift -- Hesitation in lower gears -- Holds gear too long Toyota dealerships were told to perform a software update to modify the powertrain control module logic for the Siennas. A month later Toyota issued T-SB-0194-17, titled "Lack of Power/High RPM Shift Point/Hesitation" for the 2017 Highlander which said the vehicles may suffer from: -- Lack of power -- High RPM shift point at the 2 - 3 shift -- Hesitation in low gears Again, dealers were told to update the powertrain control module software. In 2018 Toyota issued TSB 0160-18 titled, "Transaxle Whine Noise, Harsh Shift, MIL ON, or Reduced Power" that applied to the 2017-2018 Toyota Highlander and Toyota Sienna. However, this time Toyota told technicians to replace the transmissions with remanufactured transmissions. According to the class action, the alleged 8AT transmission problems make driving dangerous and a hazard to occupants in vehicles and surrounding property when the 8-speed transmissions hesitate, jerk, lurch and suffer from acceleration issues. The Toyota 8-speed transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California: Murphy, et al., v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Berger Montague PC, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, and Greenstone Law APC. CarComplaints.com has complaints from owners of the Toyota models named in the transmission class action lawsuit. -- Toyota Highlander Complaints - 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020 -- Toyota Sienna Complaints - 2017 / 2018 / 2019 / 2020 [GN] TOYOTA MOTOR: Zuo Suit Transferred to E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Yang Zuo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Toyota Motor North America Inc. and Toyota Motor Corporation, Defendants, was transferred from the District of New Jersey with the assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-06607 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) on September 29, 2020, and assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-04624-WFK-CLP. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Motor Vehicle Prodct Liability filed pursuant to a Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability. Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is a holding company of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corporation in the United States. Its services include government and regulatory affairs, energy, economic research, philanthropy, corporate advertising and corporate communications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chirali V. Patel, Esq. CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, pc 5 BECKER FARM ROAD 2ND FLOOR ROSELAND, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 442-5551 Email: cpatel@carellabyrne.com - and - James E. Cecchi, Esq. Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com The Defendants are represented by: Eric F. Gladbach, Esq. King & Spalding LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Fax: (212) 556-2222 Email: egladbach@kslaw.com Tel: 212-56-2206 UNUM GROUP: Park Sues in California Over Unlawful Labor Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- SEJUN PARK, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. UNUM GROUP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Maine corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-08901 (C.D. Cal., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' illegal labor policies and practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 4, and the California Business & Professional Code. The complaint alleges that the Defendants: a) fail to pay overtime to the Plaintiff and the Collective/Class members at one and one-half times their regular rates; b) make deductions of the paychecks in the amount of the overtime premiums; c) fail to provide meal breaks; d) fail to provide accurate wage statements; e) fail to indemnify employees' expenses and losses; f) fail to permit and authorize paid rest periods; and g) engage in unfair business practices in California. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Claims Examination Employee from December 2016 to July 2019. Unum Group Corporation and Unum Life Insurance Company of America are insurance companies based in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Trenton K. Kashima, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 402 West Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 762-2125 Facsimile: (619) 762-2127 E-mail: TKashima@sommerspc.com - and - Jack L. Siegel, Esq. Stacy W. Thomsen, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP, PLLC 4925 Greenville Avenue, Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 790-4454 E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz stacy@siegellawgroup.biz URSA OPERATING: Fails to Pay Lease Operators' OT, Velasco Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROKE VELASCO and KLAYTON COSTANZO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. URSA OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02923-DDD (D. Colo., Sept. 28, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Claim Act, including failure to compensate the Plaintiffs and other lease operators overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Mr. Velasco and Mr. Costanzo worked for the Defendant as lease operators from May 2014 to July 2020 and from June 2017 to June 2020, respectively. They alleges that the Defendant misclassified them as independent contractors. Ursa Operating Company, LLC, is an oil and gas exploration company with its principal place of business located at 7700 E. Arapahoe Road, in Centennial, Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523 0001 Facsimile: (713) 523 1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com VISION PROPERTY: Henderson Files Suit in Michigan ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vision Property Management, LLC. The case is styled as Rhonda Henderson, Roberta Faulks and Rachel Church, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Vision Property Management, LLC, VPM Holdings, LLC, FTE Networks, Inc., US Home Rentals, LLC, Kaja Holdings, LLC, Kaja Holdings 2, LLC, MI Seven, LLC, In Seven, LLC, RVFM 4 Series, LLC, ACM Vision V, LLC, ACP Roadmaster, LLC, ACP Nash, LLC, ACP MP Investments, LLC, DSV SPV 1, LLC, DSV SPV 2, LLC, DSV SPV 3, LLC, Boom SC, Alan Investments III, LLC, Arnosa Group, LLC, Arnosa Homes, LLC, Mom Haven 13, LP, Atalaya Capital Management, LP, Antoni Szkaradek and Alex Szkaradek, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-12649-SFC-RSW (E.D., Mich., Sept. 29, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other filed pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. VPM offers personalized full service property management in Oakland and surrounding areas.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel S. Korobkin, Esq. American Civil Liberties Union Fund of Michigan 2966 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48201 Tel: (313) 578-6824 Fax: (313) 578-6811 Email: dkorobkin@aclumich.org YOU FIT HEALTH: Pacheco Sues Over Unlawful Membership Fee Charges ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE PACHECO, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. YOU FIT HEALTH CLUBS, LLC and YOU FIT, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-02984-D (N.D. Tex., Sept. 28, 2020), arises from the Defendants' practice of charging their customers monthly membership fees, despite closure of all of their locations following the COVID-19 pandemic, in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and other customers of Youfit pay a monthly membership fee in exchange for access to Youfit's gyms and fitness facilities. However, despite the fact that all of Youfit's gyms and fitness facilities were closed due to COVID-19 pandemic, Youfit continued charging its customers the full monthly membership fees. In doing so, Youfit made the deliberate decision to take millions of dollars from its customers, who did not have access to the service Youfit promised, agreed, and warranted to them, the suit alleges. YouFit Health Clubs LLC and YouFit, LLC operate a chain of gyms and fitness facilities across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. David W. Hodges, Esq. HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com dhodges@hftrialfirm.com [*] Allow Class Action Suits Against Polluters, Says Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------- Imran Ariff at Free Malaysia Today reports that more severe punishments for water pollution should be established in the wake of the Sungai Gong incident that left 1.2 million households without water for up to four days, say two environmental activists. Roger Chan, head of the Bar Council environment and climate change committee, says that beyond fines, citizens should have the means to seek damages. "The first thing they have to change is to facilitate a class action suit," he says, adding that Sungai Gong was just the latest in a string of water disruptions this year. "We should take up a civil suit against the people who are damaging our quality of life," he said. A significant amount of damages could be demanded, given the estimated 5 million people affected by the disruption, and the duration of the shortage. Chan said the Environmental Quality Act (EQA) should include a provision that would create "an easy pathway for anybody to file an environmental suit at any point of time". Five men connected with Yip Chee Seng and Sons Sdn Bhd, which owns a factory linked to the pollution, have been charged and could face up to 30 years jail and up to RM100,000 in fines if found guilty. Faizal Parish, director of the Global Environmental Centre agrees that the EQA needs amending, and says that there are currently discussions around tabling an update later this year. Parish called on the government to "significantly increase the penalties under the act and to establish mandatory minimums on the penalties." He says that penalties are too often left up to a judge’s discretion, which can result in fines too small to act as a deterrent for big companies. "If the maximum is low and the court only awards 10% of the maximum, it's nothing, it’s a slap on the wrist. Some companies say that’s cheaper than building the treatment facility." He also said that jail time should be made a minimum punishment, rather than being left to a court’s judgement. Roger believes that beyond sanctions, larger moves will be needed in order to promote "environmental integrity" and truly address the wider issue of water disruptions. "I would definitely ask for a royal commission on this if possible, there have been so many water crises, tell us what happened." [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 ***