/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201203.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, December 3, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 242
Headlines
AA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Todd Suit Claims
ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss Doty Class Suit Against ADT LLC Pending
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
ADT INC: Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for January 2021
ADT INC: Jan 2021 Initial Approval Hearing on Villegas Settlement
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Pending
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Keryx Putative Class Suit Pending
ALLERGAN INC: Class Certification Bid in Weisbein Suit Denied
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
AMERICAN FINANCE: New York Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
AMERICAN FINANCE: Securities Suit in Maryland Underway
AMERIGROUP WASHINGTON: Dennis Case Settlement Wins Initial OK
ARGENT TRUST: Cedeno Seeks to Recover ESOP Losses Under ERISA
ARIA RESORT: Daniels Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
AURA HOME: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
AURORA CANNABIS: Pawar Law Reminds of Class Action
AURORA CANNABIS: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
BABY CLUBS: Klipa Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unreimbursed Expenses
BEACH PIZZA: Small Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
BERNARDO FASHIONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says
BLUE SCIENCE: Fails to Pay OT to Pool Technicians, Williams Claims
BRILLIANT SHOPS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says
CELSION CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline
CG CONSULTING: Ousley FLSA Suit Wins Collective Status
CHAD WOLF: Court Certifies Classes in Vidal "DACA" Suit
CHEVRON U.S.A.: Schnelle Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class
CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Settlement Class Conditionally Certified
CHRISTIANBOOK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
CRONOS GROUP: Defends Putative Class Action in Canada
CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits in New York Underway
D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Williams et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
DIVERSIFIED GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla et al. Claim
DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Classes in New York "DACA" Suit
EOS CCA: Blumenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
EQUIP OUTDOOR: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of December 15 Deadline
FIRST AMERICAN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
FIRST TRANSIT: Alkady Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
GARRETT MOTION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
GEA PIZZA: Faces Sanders Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
GODADDY INC: Approval Hearing on Bennett Settlement Set for Dec. 14
GOHEALTH INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Class Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord Entered in Valeant Securities Suit in Canada
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Still Pending
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Stayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Deal Reached in Indirect Forex Purchasers' Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Snap IPO Suit Gets Initial OK
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Utah Retirement Systems Seeks Class Status
HP INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 4 Deadline
HP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
HP INC: Schall Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Genc et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
J.W. LEE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Ferri Suit Claims
JOHN ALLAN: Faces Wong Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
JPMORGAN CHASE: JPMorgan Chase Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Reminds of December 23 Deadline
JPMORGAN CHASE: Schall Law Reminds of December 23 Deadline
JVA INDUSTRIES: Collective Status Sought for Martinez FLSA Case
KELLER WILLIAMS: Becker Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of December 21 Deadline
LEXICON PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of Callinan Securities Fraud Suit
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
MERIDIAN LODGING: Banks BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in CONTEPO Reports Suit
NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
NEOVASC INC: Schall Law Reminds of January 5 Deadline
NEWSMAX MEDIA: Faces Shortman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
NEXTCURE INC: Zhou Putative Class Action Suit Underway
NIKE INC: Shannon Sues Over Distribution Employees' Unpaid OT
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir. Bans Incentive Payments to Lead Plaintiff
OREGON: Law Center Hits Employment Dept. With Class Action Suit
P.J. CLARKE'S: Taveras Seeks Overtime Wages for Saloon Staff
PAUL PENZONE: Court Certifies 2 Classes & 4 Subclasses in "Fenty"
PEABODY ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
PEABODY ENERGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action
PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Lift Stay in Baton Securities Class Suit Pending
PERRIGO CO: Clobetasol Price-Fixing Related Suits Underway
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Choi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Moehrl-Related Suits Underway
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Schall Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
REDFIN CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Agents, Bell Suit Claims
ROBERT RILEY: Class Action Calls for Better Oversight
ROCHESTER CITY: N.N. Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 7 Deadline
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 7 Deadline
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Birmingham Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
SCANA CORP: City of Warren et al. Seek to Certify Class
SE COMMUNICATIONS: Gayheard Seeks to Certify Contractors Class
SECUKUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid Denied in Angus Case
SYNCREON NORTH AMERICA: Scott Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY: Pawar Law Reminds of Class Action
TALEN ENERGY: Durnack Sues Over Denied PPL Plan's Pension Benefits
TARGET CORPORATION: DTO Law Defeats Class Action Lawsuit
THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Enger Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit
TRANS UNION LLC: Court Certifies Class in Norman FCRA Suit
TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class Action
TURQUOISE HILL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 14 Deadline
TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 14 Deadline
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
VBFS INC: Carranza FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
VELOCITY INVESTMENT: Viernes Seeks Settlement Approval
VERIO HEALTHCARE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Announces Class Action
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Minnesota
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Suit
VYNE THERAPEUTICS: Savelstrov Settlement Granted Final Approval
WAL-MART STORES: Champendo Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
WELLS FARGO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
WEST VIRGINIA: Health Care Policies Discriminatory, Suit Says
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Mediation in Kirkland Suit Underway
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
ZOSANO PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 28 Deadline
ZOSANO PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline
*********
AA HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Todd Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
JEFF TODD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. AA HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, LLC, and CROSSROADS CARE
CENTER OF KENOSHA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01744-BHL (E.D.
Wis., November 20, 2020) is a class and collective action complaint
brought against the Defendants for their alleged unlawful
compensation system that violated overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and
Collection Laws (WWPCL).
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants on or about October 5,
2010 until on or about November 28, 2020 to perform compensable
work in the hourly-paid, non-exempt positions of aide, cook, and
housekeeping working primarily at the Defendants' Kenosha,
Wisconsin location.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated
hourly-paid, non-exempt employees frequently worked in excess of 40
hours per week during her employment with the Defendants. Although
the Defendants tracked and/or recorded their hours worked each
week, their paychecks did not properly compensate them for all
hours they worked in a workweek, including those hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, because the Defendants allegedly
failed to include all forms of non-discretionary compensation in
their regular rates of pay. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay in
accordance with the FLSA.
AA Healthcare Management, LLC and Crossroads Care Center of Kenosha
collectively and jointly owned, operated, and managed nursing
facilities in the States of Illinois and Wisconsin. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Tel: (262) 780-1953
Fax: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
doptteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
ADT INC: Bid to Dismiss Doty Class Suit Against ADT LLC Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to dismiss filed in the
class action suit entitled, Shana Doty v. ADT LLC, is pending.
In May 2020, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in a case captioned Shana Doty v. ADT LLC and filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
By an amended complaint, the plaintiff asserts causes of action on
behalf of herself and other Company customers similarly situated,
and seeks to recover damages for breach of contract, negligence,
intrusion upon seclusion, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse
Act, negligent hiring, supervision and retention, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
The Company moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.
The court has not ruled on the motion.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Discovery Ongoing in Archer Suit vs Defender Holdings
--------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the class
action suit initiated by Teddy Archer against Defender Holdings,
Inc.
In January 2020, the Company acquired Defenders Holdings, Inc.,
which is defending against litigation brought by Teddy Archer and
seven other security advisors who claim unpaid overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), breach of contract under state
law in all states, and a violation of state wage-hour laws in
California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
The lawsuit was originally filed in March 2018 in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware.
During 2018, the court conditionally certified the case as an FLSA
collective action.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class for unpaid
wages.
The parties are actively engaged in discovery.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017, ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Final Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for January 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that the final settlement approval
hearing in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re ADT
Inc. Shareholder Litigation, is set for January 2021.
Five substantially similar shareholder class action lawsuits
related to the IPO in January 2018 were filed in the Circuit Court
of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida in March, April, and May 2018 and were consolidated for
discovery and trial and entitled In re ADT Inc. Shareholder
Litigation.
The consolidated complaint in that action asserts claims on behalf
of a putative class of shareholder plaintiffs and sought to
represent a class of similarly situated shareholders for alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The complaint alleges that the Company defendants violated the
Securities Act because the registration statement and prospectus
used to effectuate the initial public offering (IPO) were false and
misleading in that they allegedly misled investors with respect to
litigation involving the Company, the Company's efforts to protect
its intellectual property, and the competitive pressures faced by
the Company.
A similar shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Perdomo v ADT
Inc., also related to the IPO in January 2018, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May
2018.
In September 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle both the state court and the federal court actions.
In connection with the agreement, the plaintiffs in the Perdomo
action voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice in
October 2019.
The parties agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement in September
2020, subject to approval by the State Court.
In October 2020, the State Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement, providing for notice to settlement class
members, and setting the date for a final approval hearing in
January 2021.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
ADT INC: Jan 2021 Initial Approval Hearing on Villegas Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADT Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2020, that a hearing on the parties' motion for
preliminary settlement approval and class certification in the
class action suit entitled, Villegas v. ADT, has been scheduled for
January 2021.
In June 2013, the Company was served with a class action complaint
in California State Court entitled Villegas v. ADT.
In this complaint, the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated
certain provisions of the California Alarm Act and the Los Angeles
Municipal Alarm Ordinance for its alleged failures to obtain alarm
permits for its Los Angeles customers and disclose the alarm permit
fee in its customer contracts.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for putative class members
who were required to pay enhanced false alarm fines as a result of
the Company not obtaining a valid alarm permit at the time of alarm
system installation.
The case was initially dismissed by the trial court and judgment
was entered in the Company's favor in October 2014, which the
plaintiff appealed. In September 2016, the California Appellate
Court reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.
In November 2018, the trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion
for class certification and certified four subclasses of customers
who received fines from the City of Los Angeles.
The parties reached a settlement agreement in principle in January
2020.
The settlement has been documented and a hearing on the parties'
motion for preliminary settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for January 2021.
ADT Inc. provides security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada. It provides a range of
fire detection, fire suppression, video surveillance, and access
control systems to residential, commercial, and multi-site
customers. The company was formerly known as Prime Security
Services Parent, Inc. and changed its name to ADT Inc. in September
2017. ADT Inc. was founded in 1874 and is headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida.
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Appeal in Karth Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a decision has not
yet been issued in the appeal made by the plaintiffs in Karth v.
Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Four putative class action lawsuits were filed against Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or Keryx, and certain of its former
officers (Gregory P. Madison, Scott A. Holmes, Ron Bentsur, and
James Oliviero) and consolidated in the Massachusetts District
Court, captioned Karth v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 26, 2016, with an amended complaint filed on
February 27, 2017).
Plaintiff sought to represent all stockholders who purchased shares
of Keryx common stock between May 8, 2013 and August 1, 2016.
The complaint alleges that Keryx and the named individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and/or
misleading statements concerning Keryx, its supplier relationships,
and future prospects, and that the allegedly misleading statements
were not made known to the market until Keryx's August 1, 2016
announcement of an interruption in its supply of Auryxia.
By order dated July 19, 2018, the Massachusetts District Court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint.
On February 27, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for judgment on
the pleadings. On April 30, 2019, the plaintiff filed a motion to
further amend his complaint, and also moved for class
certification. The Massachusetts District Court heard oral argument
on the motions for judgment on the pleadings and class
certification on June 19, 2019.
On September 23, 2019, the Massachusetts District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order denying the plaintiff's motion for class
certification, granting the defendants' motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to further
amend his Complaint. That same day, the Massachusetts District
Court entered a final judgment in favor of defendants on all
claims.
On September 24, 2019, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals held oral argument on September
15, 2020, and a decision has not yet been issued.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Nix Keryx Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint filed in
putative class action suit entitled, In re Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., is pending.
On June 28, 2018, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and Alpha Therapeutics
Merger Sub, Inc., or the Merger Sub, pursuant to which the Merger
Sub would merge with and into Keryx, with Keryx becoming a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, or the Merger.
On December 12, 2018, the company completed the Merger. In October
and November 2018, four purported shareholders of Keryx filed four
separate putative class actions, or the Merger Securities Actions,
against Keryx, a former officer and director of Keryx (Jodie P.
Morrison), former directors of Keryx (Kevin J. Cameron, Mark J.
Enyedy, Steven C. Gilman, Michael T. Heffernan, Daniel P. Regan and
Michael Rogers, some of whom are current members of the company's
Board of Directors), and, with respect to the Rosenblatt v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., (filed October 23, 2018) action,
the Merger Sub and Akebia, challenging the disclosures made in
connection with the Merger.
Three of the Merger Securities Actions were filed in the Delaware
District Court: Corwin v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
(filed October 16, 2018); Van Hulst v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals,
Inc., et al. (filed October 24, 2018); and Andreula v. Keryx
Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (filed November 1, 2018).
The fourth Merger Securities Action was filed in the Massachusetts
District Court: Rosenblatt v. Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. (filed October 23, 2018). On February 19, 2019, the plaintiff
in the Rosenblatt action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of
the action without prejudice. On March 27, 2019, the plaintiff in
the Van Hulst action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the
action without prejudice.
On April 2, 2019, the Delaware District Court granted Abraham
Kiswani, a member of the putative class in both the Andreula and
Corwin actions, and plaintiff John Andreula's motion to consolidate
the remaining two Merger Securities Actions pending in the Delaware
District Court and consolidated the Corwin and Andreula cases under
the caption In re Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., or the
Consolidated Action.
The Delaware District Court also appointed Kiswani and plaintiff
Andreula as lead plaintiffs for the Consolidated Action. On June 3,
2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in
the Consolidated Action, or the Consolidated Complaint.
The Consolidated Complaint generally alleged that the registration
statement filed in connection with the Merger contained allegedly
false and misleading statements or failed to disclose certain
allegedly material information in violation of Section 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the
Exchange Act, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.
The alleged misstatements or omissions related to (i) certain
financial projections for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial
analyses performed by the company's advisors and (ii) any alleged
negotiations that may have taken place regarding the conversion of
certain convertible notes of Keryx in connection with the Merger.
The Consolidated Complaint sought compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, a declaration that the defendants violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and an
award of lead plaintiffs' costs, including reasonable allowance for
attorneys' fees and experts' fees.
The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice on August
2, 2019. On April 15, 2020, the Delaware District Court granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the Consolidated Action in its
entirety.
On July 2, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, or the Second Consolidated Complaint. The Second
Consolidated Complaint (i) asserts the same claims under the
Exchange Act as the Consolidated Complaint, (ii) names the same
defendants as the Consolidated Complaint, (iii) seeks the same
relief as the Consolidated Complaint and (iv) as with the
Consolidated Complaint, challenges as false or misleading alleged
misstatements or omissions related to certain financial projections
for Keryx and Akebia and certain financial analyses performed by
the company's advisors.
The defendants in the Consolidated Action moved to dismiss the
Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in its entirety with
prejudice on August 10, 2020.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on
the development and commercialization of therapeutics for patients
with kidney diseases. The company was founded in 2007 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ALLERGAN INC: Class Certification Bid in Weisbein Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ray Weisbein v. Allergan,
Inc., et al., Case No. 8:20-cv-00801-FMO-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an Order:
1. denying without prejudice the Motion for Protective Order;
2. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification; and
3. denying a moot the Defendants' Ex Parte Application to
Shorten Time.
The Court said any issues relating to discovery, i.e., requests for
admissions, shall be directed to the Magistrate Judge. The
Plaintiff may file a renewed motion for class certification.
However, the parties shall comply with the Court's Order of
November 5, 2020, in preparing plaintiff's renewed motion for class
certification.
Allergan, Inc. was an American global pharmaceutical company
focused on eye care, neurosciences, medical dermatology, medical
aesthetics, breast enhancement, obesity intervention and urologics.
Allergan, Inc. was formed in 1948, incorporated in 1950 and became
a public company in 1970.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/333w2CH at no extra charge.[CC]
AMERICAN FINANCE: Dismissal of St. Clair-Hibbard Suit Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the
lower court's dismissal of the complaint initiated by Carolyn St.
Clair-Hibbard.
On February 8, 2018, Carolyn St. Clair-Hibbard, a purported
stockholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, AR Global, American Finance Advisors,
LLC, and both individuals who previously served as the Company's
chief executive officer and chair of the board of directors (the
"Former Chairmen").
On February 23, 2018, the complaint was amended to, among other
things, assert some claims on the plaintiff's own behalf and other
claims on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company as a class.
On April 26, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On May 25, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the proxy
materials used to solicit stockholder approval of the Merger at the
Company's 2017 annual meeting were materially incomplete and
misleading.
The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act against the Company, as well as control person liability
against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former Chairmen under
20(a). It also asserts state law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty against the Advisor, and claims for aiding and abetting such
breaches, of fiduciary duty against the Advisor, AR Global and the
Former Chairmen.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, rescission of the
Company's advisory agreement (or severable portions thereof) which
became effective when the Merger became effective, and a
declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the Company's
advisory agreement are void.
The Company believes the second amended complaint is without merit
and intends to defend vigorously.
On June 22, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On August 1, 2018, the plaintiff filed an
opposition to the defendants' motions to dismiss. Defendants filed
reply papers on August 22, 2018, and oral argument was held on
September 26, 2018.
On September 23, 2019, the Court granted the defendants' motions
and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has
appealed that order. Appellate briefing is complete and oral
argument took place on April 23, 2020.
On May 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.
AMERICAN FINANCE: New York Consolidated Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit in
New York.
On October 26, 2018, Terry Hibbard, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global,
American Finance Advisors, LLC, the Former Chairmen, the Company's
chief financial officer at the time of the Merger and each of the
Company's directors immediately prior to the Merger.
All of the directors immediately prior to the Merger, except for
David Gong, currently serve as directors of the Company. The
complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to which
RCA shareholders acquired shares of the Company during the Merger
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.
The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company's chief financial officer at the time of
the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior to
the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
against the Company and the Company's current chief executive
officer, president and chair of the board of directors, and control
person liability against the Advisor, AR Global and the Former
Chairmen— under Section 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company's sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.
Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.
On March 6, 2019, Susan Bracken, Michael P. Miller and Jamie
Beckett, purported stockholders of the Company, filed a putative
class action complaint in New York State Supreme Court, New York
County, on behalf of themselves and others who purchased shares of
common stock through the Company's then effective distribution
reinvestment plan, against the Company, AR Global, the Advisor, the
Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer at the time
of the Merger and each of the Company's directors immediately prior
to the Merger.
The complaint alleges that the April and December 2016 registration
statements pursuant to which class members purchased shares
contained materially incomplete and misleading information.
The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at
the time of the Merger and each of the Company’s directors
immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current
chief executive officer, president and chair of the board of
directors, and control person liability against the Advisor, AR
Global and the Former Chairmen under Section 15 of the Securities
Act.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and either rescission of
the Company's sale of stock or rescissory damages.
The Company believes the complaint is without merit and intends to
defend vigorously.
Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.
On April 30, 2019, Lynda Callaway, a purported stockholder of the
Company, filed a putative class action complaint in New York State
Supreme Court, New York County, against the Company, AR Global, the
Advisor, the Former Chairmen, the Company's chief financial officer
at the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger.
The complaint alleges that the registration statement pursuant to
which the plaintiff and other class members acquired shares of the
Company during the Merger contained materially incomplete and
misleading information.
The complaint asserts violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act against the Company, the Company's chief financial officer at
the time of the Merger and each of the Company's directors
immediately prior to the Merger, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act against the Company and the Company's current
chief executive officer, president and chair of the board of
directors, and control person liability under Section 15 of the
Securities Act against the Advisor, AR Global, and the Former
Chairmen.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and rescission of the
Company’s sale of stock pursuant to the registration statement.
Due to the early stage of the litigation, no estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonably possible losses are determinable at this
time.
On July 11, 2019, the New York State Supreme Court issued an order
consolidating the three above-mentioned cases: Terry Hibbard,
Bracken, and Callaway. The Court also stayed the Consolidated Cases
pending a decision on the motions to dismiss in the St.
Clair-Hibbard litigation pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
Following the federal court's decision on the motions to dismiss in
the St. Clair-Hibbard litigation, on October 31, 2019 plaintiffs
filed an amended consolidated class action complaint in the
Consolidated Cases seeking substantially similar remedies from the
same defendants. The Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint on December 16, 2019.
After the parties completed briefing on this motion, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision
affirming dismissal of the federal St. Clair-Hibbard action.
Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint, purportedly to limit it
to claims still viable in spite of the results of the federal
action. The proposed second amended complaint no longer contains
direct claims against the Company.
Instead, plaintiffs seek to pursue state law claims derivatively
against the Advisor, AR Global, the Company's initial chief
executive officer and chair of the board of directors, the
Company's current directors and David Gong, a former director, with
the Company as a nominal defendant.
The Court has scheduled oral argument on plaintiffs' motion to
amend for November 19, 2020.
American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.
AMERICAN FINANCE: Securities Suit in Maryland Underway
------------------------------------------------------
American Finance Trust, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit in Maryland.
On January 13, 2017, four affiliated stockholders of American
Realty Capital -- Retail Centers of America, Inc. ("RCA") filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland a
putative class action lawsuit against RCA, the Company, Edward M.
Weil, Jr., Leslie D. Michelson, Edward G. Rendell, and AR Global,
alleging violations of Sections 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by RCA and the Director Defendants, violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by AR Global and the Director
Defendants, breaches of fiduciary duty by the Director Defendants,
and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by AR Global and
the Company in connection with the negotiation of and proxy
solicitation for a shareholder vote on what was at the time the
proposed merger with RCA and an amendment to RCA's charter.
On March 11, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing the complaint.
On March 25, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing
and Rehearing En Banc, which was subsequently denied on April 9,
2019.
American Finance said, "Due to the stage of the litigation, no
estimate of a probable loss or any reasonable possible losses are
determinable at this time. No provisions for such losses have been
recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for
the nine months ended September 30, 2020 or 2019."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
American Finance Trust, Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust listed on the Nasdaq focused on acquiring and
managing a diversified portfolio of primarily service-oriented and
traditional retail and distribution related commercial real estate
properties in the U.S. The company is based in New York, New York.
AMERIGROUP WASHINGTON: Dennis Case Settlement Wins Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID DENNIS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AMERIGROUP
WASHINGTON, INC., a Washington corporation, Case No.
3:19-cv-05165-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James L. Robart
entered an Order:
1. granting preliminary approval of a proposed Settlement;
2. preliminarily appointing the Plaintiff David Dennis as
Class Representative; and
3. preliminarily appointing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g), these
attorneys and firms as Class Counsel:
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq .
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER, LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 975-0477
The Court preliminarily finds that the prerequisites for a class
action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3)
have been satisfied.
The Defendant has agreed to pay a Settlement Fund consisting of
$100 for each wrong number code in Defendant's and/or its vendors'
records, for a total of at least $541,800, and Settlement Costs
consisting of (i) an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class
Counsel; (ii) an incentive award to Plaintiff; and all costs of the
Settlement Administrator. Class Members who have submitted a valid
claim will receive a pro-rata share of the Settlement Fund.
The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act against the Defendant.
Amerigroup is a health insurance partner that offers Medicare and
Medicaid coverage.
A copy of the Court's Order of preliminary approval of settlement
dated Nov. 13, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lVIlIE at no extra charge.[CC]
ARGENT TRUST: Cedeno Seeks to Recover ESOP Losses Under ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON DEJESUS CEDENO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, RYAN SASSON, DANIEL
BLUMKIN, IAN BEHAR, DUKE ENTERPRISES LLC, TWIST FINANCIAL LLC,
BLAISE INVESTMENTS LLC, and STRATEGIC FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09987 (S.D.N.Y., November 27, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
According to the complaint, the Strategic Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) and its participants suffered significant losses after
Defendant Argent bought shares of Strategic Family, Inc. for more
than fair market value in 2017. Defendant Argent represented the
Plan and its participants as Trustee in the ESOP Transaction. As a
result, the Plan incurred tens of millions of dollars of debt over
a 30-year repayment period to finance the transaction. Defendant
Argent breached its fiduciary duties by approving the Refinancing
Transaction, which was not solely in the interest of the
participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of
providing benefits to participants and the beneficiaries of the
Plan and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the Plan.
The Shareholder Defendants are liable under ERISA for participating
in prohibited transactions and Defendant Argent's breaches of
fiduciary duty.
Argent Trust Company is an investment management firm with its
principal place of business is 1100 Abernathy Road, 500 Northpark,
Suite 550, Atlanta, Georgia.
Duke Enterprises LLC is a company formed in Delaware by Ryan
Sasson, with a principal place of business at 711 3rd Avenue, New
York, New York.
Twist Financial LLC is an investment strategy company with its
principal place of business at 512 Wilshire Dr., Great Neck, New
York.
Blaise Investments LLC is an investment company, headquartered at
54 Warren Street, Apt. PH, New York, New York.
Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC is a financial services firm
located at 711 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan T. Jenny, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007
Telephone: (202) 463-2101
Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
E-mail: rjenny@baileyglasser.com
ARIA RESORT: Daniels Seeks to Certify FLSA Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA DANIELS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIA RESORT &
CASINO, LLC; DOES I through V, inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS I
through X, inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-00453-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting her motion for collective action pursuant to
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), on behalf of:
"all persons employed by the Defendant as Slot Guest
Services Representatives, High Limit Cashiers, "Slot I's,"
or Slot Department personnel who received tip shares from
the Defendant from March 2018 through December 2018";
2. permitting her to circulate notice of this action to all
potential collective action members for 90 days;
3. requiring Aria to provide Ms. Daniels' counsel the name,
last known address, telephone number(s), and email
addresses of all putative class members; and
4. tolling the statute of limitations pending the resolution
of this Motion.
According to the complaint, Aria mandated that Ms. Daniels' and
other Aria employees' tips be shared with slot department managers
and supervisors. This practice was made unlawful by a March 2018
amendment to the FLSA. Despite an apparent knowledge of the
unlawfulness of its practice, Aria continued to allow managers and
supervisors to keep a portion of Ms. Daniels' and other employees'
tips through the end of 2018.
Ms. Daniels files this Motion on behalf of herself and other
current and former Defendant's Slot Guest Services Representatives,
High Limit Cashiers, "Slot I's," and Slot Department personnel
whose tips were improperly withheld by Aria and distributed to
managers and supervisors in violation of the FLSA's March 2018 tip
pooling amendment.
Ms. Daniels' employment with Aria commenced on December 13, 2012.
She remained an employee of Aria until her retirement and departure
from Aria on September 20, 2019. From December 13, 2012 until Ms.
Daniels' retirement, Ms. Daniels was employed as a Slot Guest
Service Representative. In that position, she earned $17.84 per
hour plus tips. Ms. Daniels' tips were subject to Aria Resort &
Casino's tip pooling policy.
Aria Resort and Casino is a luxury resort and casino, part of the
CityCenter complex on the Las Vegas Strip in Paradise, Nevada.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for collective action dated Nov.
18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2UQFqVB at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sean K. Claggett, Esq.
Joseph N. Mott, Esq.
4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100
Las Vegas, NE 89107
Telephone: (702) 655-2346
Facsimile: (702) 655-3763
E-mail: sclaggett@claggettlaw.com
joey@claggettlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul T. Trimmer, Esq.
Daniel I. Aquino, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
300 S. Fourth Street, Suite 900
Las Vegas, NE 89101
Telephone: (702) 921-2460
E-mail: paul.trimmer@jacksonlewis.com
daniel.aquino@jacksonlewis.com
AURA HOME: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aura Home, Inc. The
case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Aura Home, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-09996 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Aura Home, Inc. is located in New York and is part of the
Information Technology Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
AURORA CANNABIS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Aurora Cannabis, Inc.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can
be found at the link provided.
Aurora Cannabis, Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
Class Period: February 13, 2020 to September 4, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 1, 2020
Aurora is headquartered in Edmonton, Canada. The Company produces
and distributes medical cannabis products worldwide. It is
vertically integrated and horizontally diversified across various
segments of the cannabis value chain, including facility
engineering and design, cannabis breeding, genetics research,
production, derivatives, high value-add product development, home
cultivation, wholesale, and retail distribution.
In 2018, the Canadian government approved the Cannabis Act, which
legalized and regulated the use of recreational cannabis. In
response to the statute's approval, and the corresponding surge of
the recreational cannabis industry, Aurora completed a series of
acquisitions to expand the Company's presence and increase its
distribution, including the Company's all-share purchase of the
Canadian medical cannabis producer MedReleaf for total
consideration of 3.2 billion Canadian dollars. Like many other
companies in the cannabis industry, however, the Company
encountered a variety of difficulties as the industry surged,
including, inter alia, overproduction, regulatory delays, and
competition from the black market.
On February 6, 2020, shortly before the start of the Class Period,
Aurora issued a press release announcing, inter alia, a "business
transformation plan," to "better align the business financially
with the current realities of the cannabis market in Canada while
maintaining a sustainable platform for long-term growth."
Specifically, the press release touted that the plan was "expected
to include significant and immediate decreases in selling, general
& administrative ("SG&A") expenses and capital investment plans."
On September 8, 2020, Aurora issued a press release "announc[ing]
an update on its business operations along with certain unaudited
preliminary fiscal fourth quarter 2020 results." Among other
things, Aurora announced that the Company expected to record up to
$1.8 billion in goodwill impairment charges in the fourth quarter
of 2020. The Company also announced that "previously announced
fixed asset impairment charges[ were] now expected to be up to $90
million, due to production facility rationalization, and a charge
of approximately $140 million in the carrying value of certain
inventory, predominantly trim, in order to align inventory on hand
with near term expectations for demand."
On this news, Aurora's stock price fell $0.99 per share, or 11.63%,
to close at $7.52 per share on September 8, 2020.
The complaint, filed on October 2, 2020, alleges that throughout
the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operational and
compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Aurora
had significantly overpaid for previous acquisitions and
experienced degradation in certain assets, including its production
facilities and inventory; (ii) the Company's purported "business
transformation plan" and cost reset failed to mitigate the
foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was foreseeable that the
Company would record significant goodwill and asset impairment
charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Aurora Cannabis class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ACB
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]
AURORA CANNABIS: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Aurora Cannabis Inc. ("Aurora Cannabis") (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/aurora-cannabis-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10746&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the class period Defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Aurora had significantly overpaid for
previous acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain
assets, including its production facilities and inventory; (ii) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (iii) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (iv) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
If you suffered a loss in Aurora Cannabis you have until December
1, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Pawar Law Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Aurora
Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB) from February 13, 2020 through September
4, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Aurora Cannabis Inc. investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (2) the
Company's purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset
failed to mitigate the foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was
foreseeable that the Company would record significant goodwill and
asset impairment charges; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 1, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
AURORA CANNABIS: Rosen Law Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminded
purchasers of the securities of Aurora Cannabis Inc. (NYSE: ACB)
between February 13, 2020 and September 4, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important December 1, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Aurora investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the Aurora class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1965.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Aurora had significantly overpaid for previous
acquisitions and experienced degradation in certain assets,
including its production facilities and inventory; (2) Aurora's
purported "business transformation plan" and cost reset failed to
mitigate the foregoing issues; (3) accordingly, it was foreseeable
that Aurora would record significant goodwill and asset impairment
charges; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
1, 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-1965.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.
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.
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]
BABY CLUBS: Klipa Sues Over Unpaid Wages & Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALLYSON KLIPA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BABY CLUBS COMPANY LLC and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC-20-587892 (Cal.
Sup. Ct., November 20, 2020) brings this complaint against the
Defendants for their alleged wage and hour abuses in violation of
the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a group fitness
instructor.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendant denied him and other similarly situated group
fitness instructors of full payment for all hours the worked,
including overtime wages;
-- The Defendant failed to reimburse expenses that they have
incurred for the business operations of the Defendant;
-- The Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage
statements since it never kept track of all hours that its group
fitness instructors worked because it only tracked and paid them
for the time that they were scheduled to teach their respective
classes; and
-- The Defendant failed to pay wages due immediately upon the
involuntary termination or within 72 hours of the voluntary
termination of their respective employment positions with the
Defendant.
The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement, penalties, restitution,
injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and costs.
The Baby Clubs Company LLC maintains and operates health and
fitness facilities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Devon K. Roepcke, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DEVOON K. ROEPCKE, PC
170 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 940-5357
E-mail: droepcke@lawdkr.com
BEACH PIZZA: Small Seeks Minimum Wages for Delivery Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Small, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
v. Beach Pizza, Inc.; Thomas Lewis; Doe Corporation 1-10; John Doe
1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-01306 (M.D. Fla., Nov. 18, 2020), seeks
appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief based on
the Defendants' willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and
similarly-situated individuals with minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff seeks to represent the delivery drivers who have
worked at the Defendants' Beach Pizza Domino's stores.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants repeatedly and willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Florida minimum wage law
by failing to adequately reimburse delivery drivers for their
delivery-related expenses, thereby failing to pay delivery drivers
the legally mandated minimum wages for all hours worked.
The Defendants operate approximately seven Domino's Pizza locations
in the Jacksonville area (Defendants' Beach Pizza Domino's
stores).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary R. Kessler, Esq.
GARY R. KESSLER P.C.
31 Mistflower Lane
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Telephone: (404) 909-8100
Facsimile: (404) 909-8120
E-mail: gkessler@martensonlaw.com
- and -
Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
Nathan B. Spencer, Esq.
BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
www.billerkimble.com
4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43219
Telephone: (614) 604-8759
Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
akimble@billerkimble.com
nspencer@billerkimble.com
BERNARDO FASHIONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EVELINA CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BERNARDO FASHIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09825-SHS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's
Website, https://bernardofashions.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Bernardo Fashions LLC was founded in 1995. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of women's,
children's, and infants' clothing and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
BLUE SCIENCE: Fails to Pay OT to Pool Technicians, Williams Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, CODY WILLIAMS and JOSH HERNANDEZ, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BLUE SCIENCE,
LLC and BLUE SCIENCE HOUSTON, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
4:20-cv-03957 (S.D. Tex., November 20, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime premium in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as pool techs who go
to customers' homes to clean and maintain backyard pools.
The Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week. However, the Defendants paid them a certain amount
of money for discrete tasks performed regardless of hours worked on
that task each day or each week. Moreover, the Defendants refused
to pay them for time spend on work that did not generate revenue
for the Defendants, such as time spent at required company meetings
and going to the Defendants' shop to pick up supplies required to
do their duties. As a result, the Plaintiffs were not paid overtime
at the applicable overtime rate required by the FLSA for all the
hours they worked in excess of 40 per week.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated pool techs to
recover all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs.
Blue Science, LLC and Blue Science Houston, LLC provide swimming
pool services to customers' homes. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
Vijay Pattisapu, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2060 North Loop West, Suite 215
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
vijay@buenkerlaw.com
BRILLIANT SHOPS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Calcano Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
EVELINA CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRILLIANT SHOPS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-09826-LTS (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20, 2020), alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://brilliantshops.com/, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Brilliant Shops LLC operates an online retail store. The Company
advertises, markets, and sells shoes, clothes, and various other
products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
danalgottlieb@aol.com
CELSION CORPORATION: Rosen Law Reminds of December 29 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ:CLSN) between November 2,
2015 and July 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Celsion investors under the federal
securities laws. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If
you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 29, 2020.
To join the Celsion class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1978.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of
ThermoDox; (2) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval
and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; (3) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
29, 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-1978.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.
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.
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]
CG CONSULTING: Ousley FLSA Suit Wins Collective Status
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as Alicia Ousley, v. CG Consulting, LLC
d/b/a Scores Columbus, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-01744-SDM-KAJ (S.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah D. Morrison entered an Order granting
conditional certification of and approving notice and consent forms
to the Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class defined as:
"all current and former hourly employees of CG Consulting who
worked in a tipped position for which a tip credit was
applied in any workweeks beginning three years prior to
October 29, 2020 through the present." The FLSA Collective
class does not include dancers.
On October 29, 2020, the Plaintiff Alicia Ousley moved the Court
for conditional certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
of the FLSA. On November 3, 2020, the Plaintiff and Defendants CG
Consulting, LLC d/b/a Scores Columbus, Anthony Quaranta, and
Nicholas Castaldo agreed to a proposed collective FLSA class in
their joint stipulation. The Defendants also informed the Court
they will not oppose the Court conditionally certifying an FLSA
collective action. The Defendants' only opposition is to remove the
word "dancer" from the Plaintiff's proposed Notice.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 12, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35XiqLf at no extra charge.[CC]
CHAD WOLF: Court Certifies Classes in Vidal "DACA" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARTIN JONATHAN BATALLA
VIDAL, et al., v. CHAD WOLF, et al, Case No. 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS
(E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas J. Garaufis entered an Order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the Batalla Vidal matter;
2. certifying these classes:
a. A "Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
Class" (for the claims challenging the appointment of
Defendant Wolf and the legality of the 2020 Wolf
Memorandum and its implementing guidance, including the
Edlow Memorandum):
"all persons who are or will be prima facie eligible
for deferred action under the terms of the 2012
Napolitano Memorandum"; and
b. A "Pending Applications Subclass" (for the claims
challenging the application of the 2020 Wolf Memorandum
and its implementing guidance, including the Edlow
Memorandum, to certain DACA applications):
"all persons who had an application for deferred action
through DACA, whether an initial or renewal, pending at
USCIS on any date between June 30, 2020, and July 28,
2020, that have not been or will not be adjudicated in
accordance with the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum.
Excluded from the DACA Class and the Pending
Applications Subclass are the individuals who are prima
facie eligible for deferred action through DACA and who
bring a federal lawsuit challenging the Wolf
Memorandum.;
3. appointing Martin Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcon, Eli-
Ana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Carlos Vargas, Johana
Larios Sainz, Sonia Molina, Ximena Zamora, and M.B.F. as
class representatives for the DACA Class;
4. appointing Plaintiffs Johana Larios Sainz, Sonia Molina,
and M.B.F. as class representatives for the Pending
Applications Subclass;
5. appointing the National Immigration Law Center, Jerome N.
Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, and
Make the Road New York as class counsel pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g);
6. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
denyng the Government's cross-motion, insofar as it
alleges that the Defendant Mr. Wolf was not lawfully
serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the
Homeland Security Act (HSA) when he issued the Wolf
Memorandum; and
7. directing the parties to immediately contact the court's
Deputy to schedule a conference to advise of any
forthcoming motions for relief in light of the court's
decision.
The court holds that Mr. Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security under the HSA when he issued the
July 28, 2020 memorandum. The Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment are therefore granted as to their claims under the HSA,
and the Defendant's cross-motions are denied. As to Plaintiffs'
claims under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act ("FVRA"), to the
extent they are not mooted by an appropriate remedy for the HSA
violations, the court finds that the FVRA does not apply. Finally,
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Hp8SPs at no extra charge.[CC]
CHEVRON U.S.A.: Schnelle Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY SCHNELLE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., Case No. 7:20-cv-00112-DC-RCG (W.D. Tex.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. granting conditional certification for the following Fair
Labor Standards Act class:
"all oil and gas project workers employed by, or working
on behalf of, Chevron who were paid a day-rate with no
overtime in the past 3 years (the Putative Class
Members)"; and
2. approving his proposed Notice and Consent Form and opt-in
procedures.
According to the complaint, the Court should conditionally certify
this class because Schnelle has more than satisfied his minimal
burden of demonstrating that he and the oil and gas project workers
are similarly situated, as they were all subjected to Chevron's
uniform day rate policy that deprived them of overtime compensation
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Chevron provides energy services. The Company offers fuels, motor
oil, fuel additives, base oils, chemicals, natural gas, lubricants,
and other related services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
18, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33bpqC6 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson
Andrew W. Dunlap
Richard M. Schreiber
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 325-1100
Facsimile: (713) 325-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
CHIPOTLE SERVICES: Settlement Class Conditionally Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATILDE YAMILEH ULLOA
GOMEZ et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, v. CHIPOTLE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-03398-PJM (D.
Md.), the Hon. Judge Peter J. Messitte entered an Order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Certification of Class Action and Preliminary Approval of
Settlement Agreement;
2. conditionally certifying following class for settlement
purposes:
""Crew members," "kitchen managers," "service managers,"
and related hourly employees employed at the Chipotle
restaurant located at 564 North Frederick Avenue,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, from June 1, 2017, to August 31,
2019, and worked at least one afternoon shift or night
shift during that time;"
3. appointing Plaintiffs Matilde Yamileh Ulloa Gomez, Laura
V. Purca, Abigail Guzman Rivas, Kevin Alexis Rivas
Cornejo, Yessica Magaly Espinoza Canas, and William
Velasquez as class representatives;
4. appointing Michael K. Amster, of Zipin, Amster &
Greenberg, LLC, as class counsel and that the attorney
fees and costs requested by class counsel are
preliminarily approved;
5. directing the class action members who wish to object to
or exclude themselves from the settlement must follow the
procedures described in the proposed notice; and
6. setting a final approval hearing of the settlement on
March 17, 2021.
Chipotle is an American chain of fast casual restaurants in the
United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France,
specializing in tacos and Mission burritos that are made to order
in front of the customer.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pPbV4Q at no extra charge.[CC]
CHRISTIANBOOK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Christianbook, LLC.
The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Christianbook, LLC, Case No.
1:20-cv-09995 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Christianbook, LLC, formerly known as Christian Book Distributors,
is a Christian catalog and internet retailer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Credit Acceptance Corp. ("Credit Acceptance" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: CACC) from November 1, 2019 through August 28, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Credit Acceptance Corporation securities, and/or
would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit
Credit Acceptance Corp. 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) that the Company was topping off the pools of loans that
they packaged and securitized with higher-risk loans; (ii) that
Credit Acceptance was making high-interest subprime auto loans to
borrowers that the Company knew borrowers would be unable to repay;
(iii) that the borrowers were subject to hidden finance charges,
resulting in loans exceeding the usury rate ceiling mandated by
state law; (iv) that Credit Acceptance took excessive and illegal
measures to collect debt from defaulted borrowers; (v) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to face regulatory scrutiny and
possible penalties from various regulators or lawsuits; and (vi)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendant's positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and adherence to
appropriate laws and regulations were materially misleading and/or
lacked a reasonable basis.
On August 28, 2020, the Massachusetts Attorney General ("Mass AG")
filed a lawsuit against Credit Acceptance alleging that the Company
has, for years, been making unfair and deceptive automobile loans
to thousands of Massachusetts consumers. Additionally, the lawsuit
alleges that Credit Acceptance provided its investors with false
and/or misleading information regarding the asset-backed
securitizations they offered to investors, and that the Company
engaged in unfair debt collection practices as well. In response
to the public disclosure of the Mass AG lawsuit, Credit
Acceptance's stock price fell $85.36 per share, or over 18%, to
close at $374.07 per share over two trading days ending on
September 1, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 1, 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 Credit Acceptance securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/creditacceptancecorp-cacc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-298/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]
CRONOS GROUP: Defends Putative Class Action in Canada
-----------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company is a
defendant in a putative class action suit filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
On June 3, 2020, an alleged shareholder filed a Statement of Claim
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto, Ontario,
Canada, seeking, among other things, an order certifying the action
as a class action on behalf of a putative class of shareholders and
damages of an unspecified amount.
The Statement of Claim names the Company, its former Chief
Executive Officer (now Executive Chairman), Chief Financial
Officer, former Chief Financial Officer and Chief Commercial
Officer, and current and former members of its Board of Directors
as defendants and alleges breaches of the Ontario Securities Act,
oppression under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and common
law misrepresentation.
The Statement of Claim generally alleges that certain of the
Company's prior public statements about revenues and internal
controls were misrepresentations based on the Company's March 2,
2020 disclosure that the Audit Committee of its Board of Directors
was conducting a review of the appropriateness of revenue
recognized in connection with certain bulk resin purchases and
sales of products through the wholesale channel, and the Company's
subsequent restatement.
The Statement of Claim does not quantify its damage request.
The Company and the other named defendants have not yet filed a
response to the Statement of Claim.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.
CRONOS GROUP: Putative Class Suits in New York Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Cronos Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend two putative class action suits in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On March 11 and 12, 2020, two alleged shareholders of the Company
separately filed two putative class action complaints in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the
Company and its former Chief Executive Officer (now Executive
Chairman) and Chief Financial Officer alleging violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act against the individual defendants.
The complaints generally allege that certain of the Company's prior
public statements about revenues and internal controls were
incorrect based on the Company's March 2, 2020, disclosure that the
Audit Committee of its Board of Directors was conducting a review
of the appropriateness of revenue recognized in connection with
certain bulk resin purchases and sales of products through the
wholesale channel.
The complaints do not quantify a damage request.
Defendants have not yet responded to the complaints.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Cronos Group Inc. is an innovative global cannabinoid company with
international production and distribution across five continents.
The company is committed to building disruptive intellectual
property by advancing cannabis research, technology and product
development and are building an iconic brand portfolio. The company
is based in Ontario Canada.
D'ARGENT FRANCHISING: Williams et al. Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMANTHA WILLIAMS and DAKOTA FISHER, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, and WES PIGOTT, Plaintiffs v.
D'ARGENT FRANCHISING, LLC, D'ARGENT CONSTRUCTION, LLC, D'ARGENT
COMPANIES, LLC, THOMAS GIALLONARDO, JUSTIN GIALLONARDO, and XYZ
INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01501 (W.D. La.,
November 21, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
policy of not paying overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs allege that although they routinely work more than
40 hours per week, the Defendants deprived them of any overtime
compensation for all the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week
at the applicable overtime required by the FLSA. Plaintiff Pigott
affirms that when he was working as a manager of the Argent's
Huddle House franchise, he was instructed by Defendant Justin
Giallonardo to reduce their employees' hours to forty hours by
using the "edit punch". When Plaintiff Pigott stopped doing it for
a month because he thought it was wrong, Defendant Justin
Giallonardo punished and retaliated against him by deducting
approximately $8,000 from his paychecks.
Plaintiff Dakota Fisher, who has worked with the Defendant D'Argent
Construction, LLC, also claims that he was not being paid for any
hours worked over 40 despite he routinely worked 70 hours per week.
The Defendant allegedly engaged in deliberate spoliation of
evidence by deleting hours worked over 40 from the Defendants'
Aloha time-management system, thereby failing to maintain adequate
records as required under the FLSA.
The Corporate Defendants are integrated enterprise of the D'Argent
Companies. The Individual Defendants are part owners of the
Corporate Defendants and they exercised operational control over
significant aspects of the Corporate Defendants. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Most, Esq.
Hope Phelps, Esq.
David Lanser, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MOST
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 114
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 509-5023
E-mail: williammost@gmail.com
- and –
Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
KENNETH C. BORDES, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
2725 Lapeyrouse St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Telephone: (504) 588-2700
Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
E-mail: kcb@kennethbordes.com
DIVERSIFIED GLASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bonilla et al. Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO BONILLA; and DARWIN MORENO PACHECO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DIVERSIFIED GLASS &
STOREFRONTS INC.; MJM CONTRACTORS LLC; NORTH MIDLAND CONTRACTING
LLC; J & E BUILDING SERVICES INC.; JOHN QUINN, and DECLAN
GALLAGHER, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-09805 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 20,
2020) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Bonilla was employed by the Defendant as glazier while
Plaintiff Pacheco was employed as mechanic.
Diversified Glass and Storefront provides fabrication and
installation of exquisite metal and glass craftsmanship. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William Brown, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM LLP
521 5th Avenue, Suite 1744
New York, NY 10175
Telephone: (718) 971-0326
Facsimile: (718) 795-1642
E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com
DONALD TRUMP: Court Certifies Classes in New York "DACA" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STATE OF NEW YORK, et al.,
v. DONALD TRUMP, et al, Case No. 1:17-cv-05228-NGG-VMS (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Nicholas J. Garaufis entered an Order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the Batalla Vidal matter;
2. certifying these classes:
a. A "Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
Class" (for the claims challenging the appointment of
Defendant Wolf and the legality of the 2020 Wolf
Memorandum and its implementing guidance, including the
Edlow Memorandum):
"all persons who are or will be prima facie eligible
for deferred action under the terms of the 2012
Napolitano Memorandum"; and
b. A "Pending Applications Subclass" (for the claims
challenging the application of the 2020 Wolf Memorandum
and its implementing guidance, including the Edlow
Memorandum, to certain DACA applications):
"all persons who had an application for deferred action
through DACA, whether an initial or renewal, pending at
USCIS on any date between June 30, 2020, and July 28,
2020, that have not been or will not be adjudicated in
accordance with the 2012 Napolitano Memorandum.
Excluded from the DACA Class and the Pending
Applications Subclass are the individuals who are prima
facie eligible for deferred action through DACA and who
bring a federal lawsuit challenging the Wolf
Memorandum.
3. appointing Martin Batalla Vidal, Antonio Alarcon, Eli-
Ana Fernandez, Carolina Fung Feng, Carlos Vargas, Johana
Larios Sainz, Sonia Molina, Ximena Zamora, and M.B.F. as
class representatives for the DACA Class;
4. appointing Plaintiffs Johana Larios Sainz, Sonia Molina,
and M.B.F. as class representatives for the Pending
Applications Subclass;
5. appointing the National Immigration Law Center, Jerome N.
Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School, and
Make the Road New York as class counsel pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g);
6. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and
denyng the Government's cross-motion, insofar as it
alleges that the Defendant Mr. Wolf was not lawfully
serving as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security under the
Homeland Security Act (HSA) when he issued the Wolf
Memorandum; and
7. directing the parties to immediately contact the court's
Deputy to schedule a conference to advise of any
forthcoming motions for relief in light of the court's
decision.
The court holds that Mr. Wolf was not lawfully serving as Acting
Secretary of Homeland Security under the HSA when he issued the
July 28, 2020 memorandum. The Plaintiffs' motions for summary
judgment are therefore granted as to their claims under the HSA,
and the Defendant's cross-motions are denied. As to Plaintiffs'
claims under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act ("FVRA"), to the
extent they are not mooted by an appropriate remedy for the HSA
violations, the court finds that the FVRA does not apply. Finally,
the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is granted.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 14, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/397CpsAat no extra charge.[CC]
EOS CCA: Blumenberg Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
MOSHE BLUMENBERG, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOS CCA d/b/a COLLECTO INC., US
ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-05764 (E.D.N.Y., November 27, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by omitting material information on debt collection
letters sent to the Plaintiff and Class members creating a false
and misleading representation of the debt and falsely representing
the character, amount or legal status of the debt.
As a result of the Defendants' deceptive, misleading, and unfair
debt collection practices, the Plaintiff and Class members have
been damaged.
EOS CCA, d/b/a Collecto Inc., is a debt collection company with
principal place of business located at 700 Longwater Drive,
Norwell, Massachusetts.
US Asset Management Inc. is a debt collection company with
principal place of business located at 700 Longwater Drive,
Norwell, Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
EQUIP OUTDOOR: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equip Outdoor
Technologies USA, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Equip
Outdoor Technologies USA, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09994 (S.D.N.Y.,
Nov. 27, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Equip Outdoor Technologies designs and supplies mountaineering
equipment. The Company designs and markets technical outdoor
equipment including clothing, sleeping bags, insulated jackets,
winter accessories, gloves, hats, mountain shelters, hydration
systems, chalk bags, tents, and backpacking accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
EVERGREEN PROFESSIONAL: Final Approval of Class Settlement Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EVERGREEN
PROFESSIONAL RECOVERIES, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-00184-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying this case as a class action, on behalf of:
"all natural persons residing in the United States whose
consumer report as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d) was
obtained by Evergreen from Transunion, LLC, for the
purpose of collecting a debt arising out of any driving
ticket violation in the United States. The class excludes
all persons who have filed for bankruptcy"; and
2. granting final approval of the Parties' class settlement
agreement.
The Plaintiff asks the Court to approve the payment of a Service
Award to Plaintiffs, in the amount of $2,000.00. The Plaintiff also
ask the Court to approve the payment of attorneys' fees and costs
to Class Counsel in the sum of $73,520.00.
Evergreen is a debt collection agency.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3lR3N1o at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari M. Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300
Asbury Park, NJ 07712
E-mail: Ari@MarcusZelman.com
- and -
Michael Brubaker, Esq.
BRUBAKER LAW GROUP PLLC
14506 NE 184th Pl
Woodinville, WA 98072
E-mail: emorrison@grsm.com
EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of December 15 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Evolus, Inc. (NASDAQ: EOLS) between
February 1, 2019 and July 6, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
of the important December 15, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the
securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Evolus investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Evolus class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1954.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the real source of botulinum toxin bacterial strain as
well as the manufacturing processes used to develop Jeuveau™
originated with and were misappropriated from Medytox; (2)
sufficient evidentiary support existed for the allegations that
Evolus misappropriated certain trade secrets relating to the
botulin toxin strain and the manufacturing processes for the
development of Jeuveau™; (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real
threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import,
marketing, and sale of Jeuveau™; (4) which in turn seriously
threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau™ in the
United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated
from the sale of Jeuveau™ were based on Evolus' unlawful
activities, including the misappropriation of trade secrets and
secret manufacturing processes belonging to Allergan and Medytox.
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 December
15, 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-1954.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.
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.
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]
FIRST AMERICAN: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 24 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of First
American Financial Corporation. Investors have until the deadline
listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF)
Class Period: February 17, 2017 - October 22, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 24, 2020
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company
failed to implement basic security standards to protect its
customers' sensitive personal information and data; (2) First
American Financial faced a heightened risk of cybersecurity failure
due to its automation and efficiency initiatives; and (3) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
FIRST TRANSIT: Alkady Class Action Settlement Wins Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ALKADY, v. FIRST
TRANSIT, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-02291-L-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge entered an Order:
1. certifying a class consisting of:
"all current and former employees employed by First
Transit, Inc. as non-exempt fixed route bus drivers at
First Transit's Orange County Transportation Authority
locations in Santa Ana and Irvine, California at any time
during the time period of May 15, 2015 through October 2,
2018"; and
2., provisionally certifying a "Waiting Time Penalties"
subclass comprised of:
"all Class Members whose employment with First Transit
ended at any time during the time period of May 15, 2015
18 through October 2, 2018."
The Court said, "The certifications are granted for the purposes of
settlement only. This action meets the class certification
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3).
The Class is sufficiently numerous. It includes approximately 1,128
putative members."
The Defendant will pay a non-reversionary Gross Settlement Amount
of $397,500 to be distributed as:
-- settlement administration expenses not to exceed $18,500;
-- Class Counsel litigation costs not to exceed $11,000;
-- Plaintiff's enhancement award not to exceed $10,000;
-- $15,000 to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency for the PAGA claim; and
-- Class Counsel's attorneys' fees not to exceed $132,500.
What remains of the Gross Settlement Amount after the foregoing
distributions shall constitute the Net Settlement Amount, of which
37.5% is to be designated as the Waiting Time Penalty Award,
distributed to the subclass members in equal shares, and the
remainder to the Class Members pro rata based on the number of
Qualifying Workweeks. Any returned or uncashed settlement checks
are to be remitted to the California State Controller's Unclaimed
Property Fund to be held in the name of the Class Member.
According to the Plaintiff, his rest break claims arise out of
Defendant's class-wide policies and practices. In the operative
first amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods and
rest breaks, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failure to timely pay all wages due upon termination, violation of
the Unfair Competition Law, and a cause of action pursuant to the
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The action was removed from
State court.
A copy of the Court's Order granting plaintiff's motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement dated Nov. 13, 2020
is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/35U7qOB at no
extra charge.[CC]
FLUIDIGM CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fluidigm Corporation. You can
review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you
may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead
plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing
the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Fluidigm Corporation (NASDAQ:FLDM)
Class Period: February 7, 2019 - November 5, 2019
Deadline: November 20, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/fldm
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Fluidigm was experiencing longer sales cycles;
(2) as a result, Fluidigm's revenue was reasonably likely to
decline; 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. [GN]
GARRETT MOTION: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that class action
lawsuits have been filed on behalf of shareholders of Garrett
Motion Inc. Investors had until the deadline listed below to file a
lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal
rights in these class actions at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX, OTC: GTXMQ)
Class Period: October 1, 2018 - September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 24, 2020
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that, due to its
agreement to indemnify and reimburse Honeywell for certain
asbestos-related liability, Garrett was saddled with an
unsustainable level of debt; (2) that, as a result, Garrett had a
highly leveraged capital structure that posed significant
challenges to its overall strategic and financial flexibility; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Garrett's ability to gain or
hold market share was impaired; (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to seek bankruptcy
protection; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at
this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action
and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to
learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847,
toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
GEA PIZZA: Faces Sanders Suit Over Managers' Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA SANDERS, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEA
PIZZA – SLW BLVD., INC., a Florida Corporation d/b/a Rosati's
Pizza, Defendant, Case No. 9:20-cv-82135-XXXX (S.D. Fla., November
20, 2020) is a collective action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged illegal time shaving scheme in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly paid manager in its pizzeria, alleges that the Defendant
willfully and recklessly implemented a scheme that reduces its
labor costs whereby its upper management manipulated its employees'
time records to reflect less hours that what were actually worked.
As a result, despite working more than 40 hours in a week, the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 during a seven-day
workweek.
GEA Pizza – SLW Blvd., Inc. operates a restaurant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Norell, Esq.
ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
300 N.W. 70th Ave., Ste. 305
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 617-6017
Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com
GODADDY INC: Approval Hearing on Bennett Settlement Set for Dec. 14
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GoDaddy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2020, that the final settlement approval
hearing in Jason Bennett v. GoDaddy.com, is set on December 14,
2020.
On June 13, 2019, the company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the class action complaint, Jason Bennett v.
GoDaddy.com (Case No. 2:16-cv-03908-DLR)(U.S.D.C.)(D.AZ), filed on
June 20, 2016. The complaint alleges violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the TCPA).
On September 23, 2019, the parties fully executed a written
settlement agreement. On December 16, 2019, the company amended the
settlement agreement to include two additional putative class
action cases, which also alleged violations of the TCPA: John
Herrick v. GoDaddy.com, LLC, D. Ariz. (Case No. 2:16-cv-00254,
appeal pending 18-16048 (9th Cir.)) and Susan Drazen v.
GoDaddy.com, LLC (Case No 19-cv-00563).
On April 22, 2020, the parties filed statements in response to a
request from the Court to refine the class definition, resulting in
a reduction in the total number of class members from the original
estimated class.
Accordingly, the company recorded a $2.9 million reduction to
general and administrative expenses during the three months ended
March 31, 2020, lowering its estimated loss provision for this
settlement to $15.1 million at March 31, 2020.
On May 14, 2020, the Court granted approval of the plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for preliminary certification of the settlement
class, subject to the parties' execution of an amended settlement
agreement to remove John Herrick as a class representative.
The parties executed such amendment on May 26, 2020, and on June 9,
2020, the Court granted preliminary approval of the final
settlement agreement. The Court's order also set October 7, 2020 as
the deadline for class members to submit claims and December 14,
2020 as the hearing date regarding final approval of the
settlement.
Under the terms of the final settlement agreement, the company will
make available a total of up to $35.0 million to pay: (i) class
members, at their election, either a cash settlement or a credit to
be used for future purchases of products from the company; (ii) an
incentive payment to the class representatives; (iii) notice and
administration costs in connection with the settlement; and (iv)
attorneys' fees to legal counsel representing the class.
Upon final approval, the company will receive a full release from
the settlement class (other than from those class members who
timely elect to opt out of the settlement) concerning the claims
asserted, or that could have been asserted, with respect to the
claims released in the final settlement agreement.
On September 1, 2020, the Court issued an amended order reducing
the attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel representing the
class. Additionally, the actual number of claims made by class
members through the October 7, 2020 deadline were lower than the
company's original estimates.
Based primarily on these two factors, the company recorded a $4.8
million reduction to general and administrative expenses during the
three months ended September 30, 2020, lowering its estimated loss
provision for this settlement to $10.3 million at September 30,
2020.
This accrual represents our best estimate of the total settlement
costs, inclusive of attorneys' fees to be paid to legal counsel
representing the class. The settlement remains subject to the
Court's final approval, which is expected to be received at a
hearing on December 14, 2020.
The company's legal fees associated with this matter have been
recorded to general and administrative expense as incurred and were
not material.
GoDaddy said "We have denied and continue to deny the allegations
in the complaint. Nothing in the final settlement agreement shall
be deemed to assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing
or liability, or of the appropriateness of a class action in such
litigation."
GoDaddy Inc., incorporated on May 28, 2014, is a technology
provider to small businesses, Web design professionals and
individuals. The Company delivers cloud-based products and
personalized customer care. The Company operates a domain
marketplace, where its customers can find the digital real estate
that matches their idea. The company is based in Scottsdale,
Arizona.
GOHEALTH INC: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that it
has filed a federal securities class action lawsuit against
GoHealth, Inc. ("GoHealth" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GOCO). The
class action, filed in United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under
1:20-cv-05765, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired GoHealth
Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with GoHealth's July 2020 initial
public offering (the "IPO"). Wolf Haldenstein is seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act")
against GoHealth, certain of GoHealth's officers and directors, and
the private equity sponsor of the IPO and its affiliates.
All investors who purchased shares of GoHealth and incurred losses
are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com
or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional
information concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of against GoHealth., you
may, no later than November 20, 2020, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the shares of GoHealth.
On June 19, 2020, GoHealth filed a registration statement with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for the
IPO on Form S-1 (the "Registration Statement"), which was used to
sell to the investing public 43.5 million shares of GoHealth Class
A common stock at $21 per share, for total gross proceeds of $913.5
million.
Our complaint alleges that the Offering Materials for the IPO were
negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements
of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make
necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations
governing their preparation. Specifically, the Offering Materials
failed to disclose that at the time of the IPO:
the Medicare insurance industry was undergoing a period of
elevated churn, which had begun in the first half of 2020;
GoHealth suffered from a higher risk of customer churn as a result
of its unique business model and limited carrier base;
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;
GoHealth had entered into materially less favorable revenue
sharing arrangements with its external sales agents; and
these adverse financial and operational trends were internally
projected by GoHealth to continue and worsen following the IPO.
Since the July 2020 IPO, the price of GoHealth Class A common stock
has suffered significant price declines. 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 nearly two months prior.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
GOLDMAN SACHS: Accord Entered in Valeant Securities Suit in Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. entered into a settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs, which is subject to court approval.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Goldman Sachs Canada Inc. are among the
underwriters and initial purchasers named as defendants in a
putative class action filed on March 2, 2016 in the Superior Court
of Quebec, Canada.
In addition to the underwriters and initial purchasers, the
defendants include Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.,
certain directors and officers of Valeant and Valeant's auditor.
As to GS&Co. and GS Canada, the complaint relates to the June 2013
public offering of $2.3 billion of common stock, the June 2013 Rule
144A offering of $3.2 billion principal amount of senior notes, and
the November 2013 Rule 144A offering of $900 million principal
amount of senior notes.
The complaint asserts claims under the Quebec Securities Act and
the Civil Code of Quebec. On August 29, 2017, the court certified a
class that includes only non-U.S. purchasers in the offerings.
Defendants' motion for leave to appeal the certification was denied
on November 30, 2017.
On August 4, 2020, Valeant entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs, which is subject to court approval. Under the terms
of the agreement, the firm will not be required to contribute to
the settlement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over 1MDB Scandal Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
company's motion to dismiss the class action suit related to 1MDB
remains pending.
On December 20, 2018, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Group Inc. and certain former officers of the firm
alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Exchange
Act with respect to Group Inc.'s disclosures concerning 1MDB and
seeking unspecified damages.
The plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on October 28,
2019, which the defendants moved to dismiss on January 9, 2020.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Consolidated Suit Over Mortgage Matters Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the
proceedings in the consolidated suit against Group, Inc. over
mortgage-related matters remain stayed.
Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s
public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in
the collateralized debt obligation market, and the firm’s
conflict of interest management.
The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which
names as defendants Group Inc. and certain current and former
officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and seeks unspecified damages.
The defendants have moved for summary judgment.
On April 7, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
district court's August 14, 2018 grant of class certification, and
on June 15, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the
defendants' motion seeking rehearing of the April 7, 2020 decision.
On July 16, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
defendants' motion to stay the proceedings in the litigation,
pending the resolution of a petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court to seek review of the Second Circuit
Court of Appeals' April 7, 2020 decision.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Deal Reached in Indirect Forex Purchasers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court
has preliminarily approved a settlement in principle in the
putative class action suit filed on behalf of putative indirect
purchasers of foreign exchange instruments.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and the company are among the defendants
named in putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York beginning in September 2016
on behalf of putative indirect purchasers of foreign exchange
instruments.
On August 5, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a third consolidated
amended complaint generally alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the
foreign currency exchange markets, asserting claims under various
state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and seeking
treble damages in an unspecified amount.
On July 17, 2020, the court preliminarily approved a settlement in
principle.
The firm has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution
to the settlement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in Snap IPO Suit Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 2, 2020,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that a district
court has preliminarily approved the settlement in a litigation
related to Snap Inc.'s sale of securities.
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is among the underwriters named as
defendants in putative securities class actions pending in
California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, and the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California beginning in
May 2017, relating to Snap Inc.'s $3.91 billion March 2017 initial
public offering.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Snap Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors.
GS&Co. underwrote 57,040,000 shares of common stock representing an
aggregate offering price of approximately $970 million.
The underwriter defendants, including GS&Co., were voluntarily
dismissed from the district court action on September 18, 2018.
In the district court action, defendants moved for summary judgment
on December 19, 2019, following the court's November 20, 2019 order
approving plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The state
court actions have been stayed.
On April 27, 2020, the district court preliminarily approved a
settlement among the parties.
Also on April 27, 2020, the state court plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval of a settlement of the state court
actions.
Under the terms of the federal and state court preliminary
settlements, the firm will not be required to contribute to either
settlement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. operates as an investment banking,
securities, and investment management company worldwide. It
operates in four segments: Investment Banking, Institutional Client
Services, Investing & Lending, and Investment Management. The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. was founded in 1869 and is headquartered
in New York, New York.
HEALTHCARE SERVICES: Utah Retirement Systems Seeks Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as UTAH RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. HEALTHCARE
SERVICES GROUP, INC., DANIEL P. MCCARTNEY, THEODORE WAHL, JOHN C.
SHEA, and MATTHEW J. MCKEE, Case No. 2:19-cv-01227-ER (E.D. Pa.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of HCSG from April 8, 2014
through March 4, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period") and
were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants and any
affiliates or subsidiaries of HCSG; (ii) present or former
officer, director, or controlling persons of HCSG, its
subsidiaries, or its affiliates, and their immediate
family members; (iii) Defendants’ directors’ and
officers’
liability carriers and any affiliates or subsidiaries
thereof; (iv) any entity in which any Defendant has or has
had a controlling interest; and (v) the legal
representatives, heirs, estates, agents, successors, or
assigns of any person or entity described in the preceding
categories.;
2. appointing Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of the
Class; and
3. appointing Berman Tabacco as Class Counsel and Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP as Class Liaison Counsel.
Utah Retirement Systems administers pension plans and retirement
savings plans for public employees in the U.S. state of Utah. There
are eight separate defined-benefit pension plans administered by
URS, as well as various retirement savings plans.
Healthcare Services Group provides food, housekeeping, laundry and
linen, and maintenance services to hospitals, and nursing homes.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Nov. 13, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35PiX1o at no extra charge.[CC]
Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Utah Retirement Systems & Lead Counsel
for the Class, are:
Ira Neil Richards, Esq.
Arleigh P. Helfer III
SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP
1600 Market Street, Ste. 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 751-2503
Facsimile: (215) 751-2205
E-mail: irichards@schnader.com
ahelfer@schnader.com
- and -
Nicole Lavallee, Esq.
Jeffrey Rocha, Esq.
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO, Esq.
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-3200
Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
E-mail: nlavallee@bermantabacco.com
jrocha@bermantabacco.com
pegan@bermantabacco.com
sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com
HP INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of January 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against HP Inc. ("HP" or the
Company") (NYSE: HPQ) and certain of its officers, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired HP securities
between November 6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this
case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/hpq.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and misrepresented HP's
business and financial condition by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding HP's financial performance and, in particular,
its revenue, profit margin, and earnings. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that defendants provided positive financial
results for HP, but misrepresented and omitted to state that HP's
Supplies channel inventory management and sales practices had
resulted in increased channel inventory and decreased revenues and
profits.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/hpq or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in HP you
have until January 4, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as
lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't
require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]
HP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of HP Inc. shareholders. 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.
HPQ Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1
HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)
HPQ Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 6, 2015
- June 21, 2016
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 4, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/hp-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=10898&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, HP Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers that did
not need or want the product in order to artificially increase
revenues and profits; (b) HP's channel inventory management and
sales practices resulted in the sale of supplies to customers
outside of designated regions at unsustainable discounts in order
to artificially increase revenues and profits; (c) HP's channel
inventory management and sales practices resulted in the sale of
supplies at steep discounts to customers to encourage those
customers to sell the supplies further down the supply channel, out
of HP's inventory management metrics; and (d) as a result of
(a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about HP's business condition
and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
HP INC: Schall Law Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
---------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against HP Inc.
("HP" or "the Company") (NYSE:HPQ) 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 November
6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 4, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/hp-inc-2/#case-form
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. HP's sales practices artificially
inflated its performance by selling supplies to customers that did
not want or need them. The Company sold supplies outside of
designated regions at massive discounts to boost profits. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about HP,
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]
IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Genc et al. Sue Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE, and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC
INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
LTD., and IDS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY, Defendants,
Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (N. Mar. I., November 20, 2020) bring this
collective action complaint against the Defendants to recover
unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation and other damages as a
result of the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, retaliation
and other violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Turkey who were highly skilled and
experienced electricians, carpenters, welders, and plumbers. They
were employed by Defendant IPI admitted to the U.S. under the H-2B
temporary non-agricultural worker program administered in part by
the U.S. Department of Labor as construction workers to build the
Imperial Palace hotel in Garapan, Saipan, Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were given by IDS a
Letter of Commitment naming IPI as the employer and setting forth
the terms of employment. Defendant IDS, who acted on behalf of
Defendant IPI, made an agreement with the Plaintiffs to pay them
$3,000.00 a month and promised them to provide a Turkish cook for
them, life insurance and insurance for workplace, paid sick leave
every 6 months, and an airline ticket home if an employee extended
his contract for a second six months.
However, the Defendants broke their promises in the Letter of
Commitment. The Plaintiffs were destitute when they arrived in
Saipan in January 2020. Beginning on June 19, 2020, the Defendants
start missing paydays and start going weeks without paying the
Plaintiffs. The Defendants even stopped providing the Plaintiffs
with drinking water and Internet services at their barracks during
the ensuing three-week work stoppage of the Plaintiffs on September
11, 2020 in protest of the Defendants' repeated failure to pay them
on time. When the Plaintiffs went back to work in early October,
the Defendants suspended three worker leaders in punishment for the
work stoppage and to discourage further protected activity.
Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC operates a casino in
Saipan and is building a hotel complex including the casino. It is
a subsidiary of Imperial Pacific International Holdings, Ltd.,
which is an investment holding company based in Hong Kong and
listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. IDS Development &
Consultancy recruits workers in Turkey and the Middle East and
manages them at construction projects worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Richard C. Miller, Esq.
BANES HOREY BERMAN & MILLER, LLC
Suite 201, Marianas Business Plaza
P.O. Box 501969
Saipan, MP 96950
Telephone: (670) 234-5684
Facsimile: (670) 234-5683
E-mail: RMiller@pacificlawyers.law
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 4 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 lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Intercept" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ICPT) from September 28, 2019, through October 7, 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 Intercept securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Intercept Shareholder
Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman Jr. toll free at (877)
779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of
safety concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii)
the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales; (iii) any
purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating NASH
were outweighed by the risks of its use; (iv) as a result, the FDA
was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for OCA in treating
patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and (v) as a result of
all the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 22, 2020, Intercept reported that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next
week." On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share,
or 12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, Intercept issued a press release announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated
that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has
determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." The press release further advised, among other things, that
the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional
post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing
REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and
that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue." On
this news, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.
Then, on October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that Intercept was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease." On
this news, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share, or 8.05%,
to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 4, 2021. 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 Intercept securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/interceptpharmaceuticalsinc-icpt-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-331/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@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]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Portnoy Law Announces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Intercept Pharmaceutical, Inc.
("Intercept" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ICPT) investors that
acquired securities September 28, 2019 and October 7, 2020.
Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email to join the case.
Intercept's lead product candidate is Ocaliva (obeticholic acid
("OCA")), a farnesoid X receptor agonist used for the treatment of
a rare and chronic liver disease, primary biliary cholangitis
("PBC"), in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid in adults.
Intercept is also developing OCA for various other indications,
including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis ("NASH").
In 2016, accelerated approval of Ocaliva for treating PBC was
granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
Then, in late 2017, both the FDA and Intercept issued warnings
concerning the risk of overdosing patients with the drug, including
multiple reports of severe liver injuries and deaths linked with
its use.
Defendants continued to tout Ocaliva sales and purported benefits,
and its potential indication for treating various other medical
conditions, despite these concerns, . For example, in September
2019, Intercept submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA
for OCA to treat patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH.
It is alleged in the complaint that Intercept, throughout the Class
Period, made materially misleading and false statements regarding
the their business, operational, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Intercept made misleading and/or false statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the
severity and true scope of safety concerns associated with
Ocaliva's use in treating PBC; (ii) the foregoing increased the
likelihood of an investigation into Ocaliva's development by the
FDA, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's the sustainability of its sales
and continued marketability; (iii) the risks of its use outweighed
any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating
NASH; (iv) the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for
OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH, as a
result,; and (v) Intercept's public statements were materially
misleading and false at all relevant times, as a result of all the
foregoing, .
Intercept reported on May 22, 2020 that the FDA "has notified
Intercept that its tentatively scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory
committee meeting (AdCom) relating to the company's [NDA] for [OCA]
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to [NASH] has been
postponed" to "accommodate the review of additional data requested
by the FDA that the company intends to submit within the next
week."
On May 22, 2020, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or
12.19%, to close at $80.51 per share on this news.
Intercept issued a press release on June 29, 2020 announcing that
the FDA had issued a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") rejecting the
Company's NDA for Ocaliva for the treatment of liver fibrosis due
to NASH. According to that press release, "[t]he CRL indicated
that, based on the data the FDA has reviewed to date," the FDA "has
determined that the predicted benefit of OCA based on a surrogate
histopathologic endpoint remains uncertain and does not
sufficiently outweigh the potential risks to support accelerated
approval for the treatment of patients with liver fibrosis due to
NASH." Among other things, it was further advised in this press
release, that the "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit
additional post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the
ongoing REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated
approval and that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should
continue."
On June 29, 2020, Intercept's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
39.73%, to close at $46.70 per share on this news.
Then, on October 8, 2020, various news outlets reported that
Intercept was "facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the
potential risk of liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva,
[Intercept's] treatment for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare,
chronic liver disease."
On October 8, 2020, Intercept's stock price fell $3.30 per share,
or 8.05%, to close at $37.69 per share on this news.
Please visit Portnoy Law Firm's 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]
INTERCEPT PHARMA: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Jan. 4 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein")
announces that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Intercept" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ICPT) securities between September 28, 2019 and
October 7, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately
at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You
may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Intercept
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., you may, no later than January 4, 2021,
request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed
class.
The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
Defendants downplayed the true scope and severity of safety
concerns associated with Ocaliva's use in treating PBC;
the foregoing increased the likelihood of an FDA investigation into
Ocaliva's development, thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued
marketability and the sustainability of its sales;
any purported benefits associated with OCA's efficacy in treating
NASH were outweighed by the risks of its use;
as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's NDA for
OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis due to NASH; and
as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 22, 2020, Intercept stated that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") "has notified Intercept that its tentatively
scheduled June 9, 2020 advisory committee meeting (AdCom) relating
to the company's [NDA] for [OCA] for the treatment of liver
fibrosis due to [NASH] has been postponed" to "accommodate the
review of additional data requested by the FDA that the company
intends to submit within the next week."
On this news, Intercept's stock price fell $11.18 per share, or
12%, to close at $80.51 per share on May 22, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, Intercept disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA rejecting its NDA for Ocaliva
for the treatment of liver fibrosis due to NASH. According to the
CRL, "[t]he FDA recommends that Intercept submit additional
post-interim analysis efficacy and safety data from the ongoing
REGENERATE study in support of potential accelerated approval and
that the long-term outcomes phase of the study should continue."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $30.79 per share, or
nearly 40%, to close at $46.70 per share on June 29, 2020.
On October 8, 2020, news outlets reported that the Company was
"facing an investigation from the [FDA] over the potential risk of
liver injury in patients taking Ocaliva, [Intercept's] treatment
for primary biliary cholangitis, a rare, chronic liver disease."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell an additional $3.30
per share, or 8%, to close at $37.69 per share on October 8, 2020.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]
J.W. LEE: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Ferri Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
ELISABET FERRI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. J.W. LEE, INC., d/b/a SCARLETTS'S CABARET, a
Florida for Profit Corporation, and ERIC LANGAN, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-24792-RNS (S.D. Fla., November 20,
2020) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as an exotic dancer from
approximately January 2018 until June 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants illegally classified him
and all other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent
contractors to avid their obligations to pay them. Although they
frequently work in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the
Defendant, the Plaintiff and other exotics dancers did not receive
any compensation at all. The Plaintiff contends that they were only
compensated in the form of tips they received from the Defendants'
customers. As a result, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated exotic dancers at the required minimum
wage rate and overtime compensation at a rate not less than one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked
in excess of 40 per workweek. Moreover, the Defendants failed to
maintain and keep adequate records of the Plaintiff's and other
exotic dancers' work hours and pay.
J.W. Lee, Inc. d/b/a Scarlett's Cabaret operates an adult
entertainment club owned by Eric Langan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) WORKERS
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com
JOHN ALLAN: Faces Wong Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
TERESA WONG, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE JOHN ALLAN COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, and JOHN ALLAN, an individual, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-09800 (S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2020) is a class and
collective action complaint brought against the Defendants for
their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a manicurist and
pedicurist at John Allan's for a period of eight years, from June
11, 2011 through and including October 11, 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that he worked 40 hours per week throughout
her employment with the Defendant, but the Defendant never paid her
the required minimum wage for her work. Moreover, the Defendant
never provided her with an accurate wage statements with each
payment of wages and never provided any notice of her rate of pay
and employer's regular pay day.
The John Allan Company operates a salon owned by John Allan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nolan Klein, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
633 S. Andrews Ave.
Litigation Building, Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 745-0588
E-mail: klein@nklegal.com
JPMORGAN CHASE: JPMorgan Chase Reminds of Dec. 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of JPMorgan
Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) from February 23, 2016 through September
23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for JPMorgan Chase & Co. investors under the
federal securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) traders at JPMorgan, with the knowledge and consent of
their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by
"spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of
market demand; (2) JPMorgan had insufficient controls and
compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the
misconduct; (3) JPMorgan's earnings in the physical commodity
market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would
result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) JPMorgan provided
misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the
investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the
governmental investigation into JPMorgan would result in a
record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about JPMorgan's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 23, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Reminds of December 23 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM)
between February 23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important December 23, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for JPMorgan investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the JPMorgan class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1959.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) traders at JPMorgan, with the knowledge and consent of
their superiors, manipulated the precious metals market by
"spoofing," or placing fake orders to generate the appearance of
market demand; (2) JPMorgan had insufficient controls and
compliance protocols to enable it to identify and stop the
misconduct; (3) JPMorgan's earnings in the physical commodity
market were, at least in part, ill-gotten; (4) such conduct would
result in enhanced regulatory scrutiny; (5) JPMorgan provided
misleading information to CFTC investigators at early stages of the
investigation into the misconduct; (6) resolution of the
governmental investigation into JPMorgan would result in a
record-breaking $920 million fine; and (7) as a result, defendants'
statements about JPMorgan's business, operations, and prospects,
were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
23, 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-1959.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.
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.
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]
JPMORGAN CHASE: Schall Law Reminds of December 23 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against JPMorgan
Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM) ("JP Morgan" or "the Company") 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
23, 2016 and September 23, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
are encouraged to contact the firm before December 23, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/jpmorgan-chase-co/#case-form
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. JP Morgan's traders, with the permission
of the Company's executives, manipulated the precious metals market
using fake orders to "spoof" the appearance of market demand. The
Company failed to maintain appropriate controls to stop such
misconduct. This conduct resulted in regulatory scrutiny, during
which the Company misled investigators, ultimately leading to a
record-breaking $920 million fine. 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 JP Morgan, 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]
JVA INDUSTRIES: Collective Status Sought for Martinez FLSA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREVIL MARTINEZ, ALEXANDER
RAMIREZ, and LUIS MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly v. JVA INDUSTRIES INC. and JOSEPH ALFANO, individually,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07977-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. granting conditional certification of the Fair Labor
Standard Act (FLSA) claim as a representative collective
action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. granting Court-facilitated notice of this FLSA action to
covered employees; including a consent form (or opt-in
form) as authorized by the FLSA;
3. approving the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
4. directing production of names, last known mailing address,
alternate address, telephone numbers, Social Security
numbers and dates of employment of all covered employees;
and
5. posting of the Notice, along with consent forms, in
conspicuous locations at JVA Industries Inc.
Jva Industries is located in Manalapan, New Jersey and is part of
the manufacturing sector industry.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2USheCo at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
225 Broadway, 3 rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 323-6980
Facsimile: (212) 233-9238
E-mal: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
KELLER WILLIAMS: Becker Suit Seeks to Certify TCPA Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CODY MAX BECKER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, and KRISTAN
COLE, Case No. 9:19-cv-81451-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court for an order:
1. certifying a class with respect to the claims for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:
"all persons within the United States, who, on September
28, 2019 were delivered the following prerecorded
voicemail to their cellular telephone and were not real
estate agents at a Keller Williams Realty, Inc. franchise
at that time:
"Hey there this is Kristan Cole with Keller Williams.
I wanted to invite you to be my guest at a real
estate growth class I'm teaching here in Sarasota.
October 21st and 22nd. I don't know about you but
with the competition in real estate right now, I know
a lot of agents aren't making the money that they
want to make. So if you want to make more money, come
and be my guest. We'll also have a top agent
mastermind on day two to help create your own success
plan. To sign up as my guest, no there's no gimmick.
Go to KCNguest.com or text me or call me back at 512-
944-9940. Hope to see you there.""
2. designating the Plaintiff as class representative; and
3. designating the law firms of Hiraldo P.A., and Eisenband
Law P.A. as class counsel.
This case concerns the Defendants' willful disregard for the TCPA
and the use of telephone technology to bombard individuals with
unwanted, prerecorded marketing calls. On September 28, 2019, the
Defendant Kristan Cole successfully sent 1,628 unsolicited
"ringless" voicemails ("RVMs") to the cellular telephone numbers of
real estate agents employed by the competitors of Defendant Keller
Williams Realty, Inc., promoting one of Defendant Cole's seminars
being hosted at a Keller Williams office in Sarasota, Florida.
Defendant Keller Williams knew, permitted, and/or authorized
Defendant Cole to transmit the RVMs.
Keller Williams Realty is an American technology and international
real estate franchise with headquarters in Austin, Texas. Keller
Williams Realty claims to be the largest real estate franchise in
number of agents and sales volume for 2018 and 2019. It is
operated by a holding company named KWx which was formed in 2020.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
16, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35N7Feg at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Michael Eisenband, Esq.
EISENBAND LAW, P.A.
515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: 954-533-4092
E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Pawar Law Reminds of Dec. 21 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Las Vegas
Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS) from February 27, 2016 through September
15, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Las Vegas Sands Corp.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Marina Bay Sands, a Las Vegas Sands resort in Singapore,
casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers had
weaknesses; the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone to
illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the
transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential
breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; the
foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the
Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; Las Vegas Sands had inadequate disclosure
controls and procedures; consequently, all the foregoing issues
were untimely disclosed; and as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Rosen Law Reminds of December 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Las Vegas Sands Corp. (NYSE: LVS)
between February 27, 2016 and September 15, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important December 21, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Las Vegas Sands investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Las Vegas Sands class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1948.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Marina Bay Sands, a Las Vegas Sands resort in Singapore,
casino control measures pertaining to fund transfers had
weaknesses; (2) the Marina Bay Sands' casino was consequently prone
to illicit fund transfers that implicated, among other issues, the
transfer of customer funds to unauthorized persons and potential
breaches in the Company's anti-money laundering procedures; (3) the
foregoing foreseeably increased the risk of litigation against the
Company, as well as investigation and increased oversight by
regulatory authorities; (4) Las Vegas Sands had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures; (5) consequently, all the
foregoing issues were untimely disclosed; and (6) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
21, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1948.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.
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.
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]
LEXICON PHARMA: Wins Dismissal of Callinan Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAUL E. CALLINAN, and JORGE RIVERA, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Lead Plaintiffs, v.
LEXICON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., LONNEL COATS, JEFFREY L. WADE, and
PABLO LAPUERTA, Defendants, Civil Action No. H-19-0301 (S.D. Tex.),
Judge Sim Lake of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, (i) granted the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, and (ii) denied the
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
The action is brought against Lexicon, Lexicon's President, CEO,
and a Director of Lexicon, Coats, Lexicon's CFO and VP - Corporate
and Administrative Affairs, Wade, and Lexicon's Executive VP and
Chief Medical Officer Lapuert, for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during a proposed class period
beginning on March 11, 2016, and ending on July 29, 2019, both
dates inclusive.
Daniel Manopla initiated the action on Jan. 28, 2019, by filing a
Class Action Complaint asserting claims for violations of Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. On April 1, 2019, Callinan and Rivera
filed their Motion for Appointment as Lead Plaintiffs and Approval
of Counsel which the Court granted on May 31, 2019. Callinan and
Rivera were appointed as the Lead Plaintiffs, and their selection
of Pomerantz LLP as the Lead Counsel for the class and the Briscoe
Law Firm, PLLC as the Liaison Counsel for the class.
On July 30, 2019, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Class
Action Complaint ("FACAC"). The FACAC alleges that Lexicon is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and
commercialization of breakthrough treatments, i.e., drugs, for the
treatment of human diseases. Lexicon is a Delaware corporation
with its principal executive offices located in The Woodlands,
Texas. Coats has been the President, CEO, and a Director of
Lexicon since July 2014, Wade has been Lexicon's CFO and VP -
Corporate and Administrative Affairs since February 2015, and that
Lapuerta has been Lexicon's Executive VP and Chief Medical Officer
since February 2015.
The FACAC alleges that in 2015 Lexicon entered into a collaboration
and license agreement for sotagliflozin with Sanofi. Under the
Sanofi Agreement, Lexicon granted Sanofi an exclusive, worldwide,
royalty-bearing right and license to develop, manufacture and
commercialize sotagliflozin. Lexicon, however, was responsible for
all clinical development activities related to T1d and retained an
exclusive option to co-promote and collaborate with Sanofi, in the
commercialization of sotagliflozin for the treatment of T1d in the
United States. Sanofi was responsible for all clinical development
and commercialization of sotagliflozin for the treatment of T2d
(Type 2 diabetes) worldwide and was solely responsible for the
commercialization of sotagliflozin for the treatment of T1d outside
the United States.
The FACAC alleges that in 2015, Lexicon had debt of $1.1 billion
and revenues of $130 million, which was almost entirely
attributable to the initial $300 million payment received pursuant
to the Sanofi Agreement. It alleges that Lexicon reported a loss
of $4.7 million in 2015, and greater losses in each of three
following years, i.e., over $131 million loss in 2016, over $122
million loss in 2017, and over $120 million loss in 2018.
The FACAC alleges that Lexicon's cash reserves fell by 70% during
the Class Period from approximately $521 million in reported for
2015 to $133 million as of March 31, 2019. Both the Defendants and
the investors knew that Lexicon would not be able to become
profitable -- or perhaps even survive -- unless the FDA approved
Lexicon's products, and that the Defendants also knew that
obtaining FDA approval for sotagliflozin would transform the T1d
industry, because it would be the first oral antidiabetic drug
approved in the U.S. for use by adults with T1d, in combination
with insulin.
In November 2018, the FDA announced that an Advisory Committee, a
group of independent experts, would hold a public meeting on Jan.
17, 2019, to discuss the NDA for sotagliflozin. At the end of the
meeting, the Advisory Committee voted eight to eight on the
question of whether the overall benefits of sotagliflozin
outweighed the risks to support approval, and did not recommend
sotagliflozin for approval.
While trading in Lexicon's stock was suspended on Jan. 17, 2019,
the day of the Committee Meeting, that when trading resumed on Jan.
18, 2019, Lexicon's stock price declined roughly 23% to close at
$5.96 per share, and then fell to $4.46 per share on Jan. 25, 2019,
as the market digested the implications of the Advisory Committee's
deadlock.
On March 22, 2019, Lexicon announced that the FDA had issued a
"Complete Response Letter" ("CRL") informing it that the FDA would
not approve sotagliflozin. The Defendants held a call with
analysts later that day but refused to identify the reasons why the
FDA rejected sotagliflozin.45 On news of the FDA's CRL, Lexicon's
stock price fell 21.9% to close at $6.20 per share on March 22,
2019, and fell to $5.26 per share on March 28, 2019, as the market
digested the CRL's implications. Following news that the Sanofi
Agreement was being terminated, Lexicon's stock price fell $4 per
share, or 70.3%, to close at $1.69 per share on July 29, 2019.
Pending before the court are the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and
the Plaintiffs' Opposition in which they request leave to amend if
the Court grants any part of the the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Also before the court is the Defendants' Reply Brief in Support of
Their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint.
The Defendants argue that the FACAC should be dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the Plaintiffs
have failed to satisfy the pleading requirements for stating either
a primary claim under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder or a secondary claim for control
person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. They
argue that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts capable of
establishing (1) that they made an actionable misstatement or
omission; (2) that any actionable misstatement or omission was made
with scienter; or (3) caused the loss for which the Plaintiffs seek
relief. They further argue that the control-person claims under
Section 20(a) asserted against the Individual Defendants fail
because the Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for securities
fraud under Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5.
Regarding claims for violation of Section 10(b) or Rule 10b-5,
Judge Lake concludes that neither the materials presented, the
comments made, nor the tie vote on the question of whether the
benefits of sotagliflozin outweigh its risks taken at the Advisory
Committee Meeting held on Jan. 17, 2019, support the Plaintiffs'
claims that the Defendants misrepresented the results of the phase
3 trials by (1) failing to disclose FDA warnings against the
composite endpoint, (2) misrepresenting the extent and severity of
DKA, (3) misrepresenting the benefits of sotagliflozin, (4) failing
to fully disclose that "time-in-range" was not a validated
endpoint, and (5) misleading investors about their risk management
protocol.
The Plaintiffs' reliance on materials presented, comments made, and
the vote taken at the Advisory Committee Meeting in support of
their allegations that defendants committed securities fraud is
analogous to allegations of fraud by hindsight, i.e., where a
plaintiff alleges the fact that a company reports negative results
means that the company's prior reports of good results must have
been false or misleading. The Fifth Circuit has made clear,
however, that allegations of negative results are generally not
sufficient to satisfy the requirements for pleading securities
fraud, and that a plaintiffs must allege facts capable of raising a
plausible inference that earlier statements were false when made.
The Judge concludes that the FACAC is subject to dismissal for
failure to allege an actionable misrepresentation because the
FACAC's allegations of the Defendants' omissions do not contain
facts capable of establishing that any of the alleged omissions
caused any of the Defendants' statements to be false or misleading
when made. More is needed to plead actionable omissions under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.
The Defendants argue that they are entitled to dismissal of the
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims asserted against them because
the Plaintiffs failed to plead scienter. The PSLRA requires the
Plaintiffs to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of scienter with respect to each Defendant. A complaint will
survive a motion to dismiss only if a reasonable person would deem
the inference of scienter cogent and at least as compelling as any
opposing inference one could draw from the facts alleged. The
Plaintiffs argue that the FACAC's allegations regarding the
Defendants' misrepresentations of the results of the phase 3
trials, entitlement to incentive compensation if sotagliflozin
received FDA approval, need for sotagliflozin to be approved for
the company to survive, together with the accounts of the three
confidential witnesses, all support a strong inference of
scienter.
The Judge concludes that taken together, all of the facts alleged
in the FACAC fail to support a strong inference of scienter because
the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts regarding the
Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, incentive compensation,
dependence on sotagliflozin for survival, or confidential witness
statements showing that any of the alleged misrepresentations were
made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for
their truth or falsity.
The Defendants next argue that they are entitled to dismissal of
the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims asserted against them
because the Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts capable of
establishing loss causation. Because the FACAC does not allege
facts capable of establishing that the disclosures made in March
and July of 2019 corrected any misrepresentations made earlier,
these disclosures do not qualify as corrective, and the Plaintiffs
has failed to allege loss causation with respect to them. Because
he has concluded that the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims
asserted in the FACAC are subject to dismissal for failure to
allege an actionable misrepresentation, the failure to plead facts
supporting a strong inference of scienter, and failure to plead
loss causation, the Section 20(b) claim that the Plaintiffs have
asserted against the Individual Defendants, Coats, Lapuerta, and
Ward are also subject to dismissal.
Finally, because the Plaintiffs have already filed an amended
complaint that is 88 pages long, and have argued strenuously that
the FACAC states claims for which relief may be granted, and
because they have failed either to submit a proposed second amended
complaint or described any additional facts that could be alleged
in a second amended complaint that could not have been alleged in
the FACAC, the Judge is persuaded that they've pleaded their best
case, and that any additional attempt to amend would be futile.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request for leave to amend will be
denied.
For the reasons he stated, Judge Lake concludes that the Plaintiffs
have failed to state claims for violations of Sectiosn 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Accordingly, the Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss is granted and the Judge denied the Plaintiffs' Request to
Amend stated at the end of their Opposition to Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Memorandum
Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y29hdam7 from
Leagle.com.
LOOP INDUSTRIES: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 14, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Loop Industries, Inc. ("Loop" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LOOP) securities between September 24, 2018 and October
12, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Loop investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your information
at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/loop-industries-inc/. You can
also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free
at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
learn more about your rights.
On October 13, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that "[a] former Loop employee told
us that Loop's scientists, under pressure from CEO Daniel Solomita,
were tacitly encouraged to lie about the results of the company's
process internally. We have obtained internal documents and
photographs to support their claims." The report also stated that
"Loop's previous claims of breaking PET down to its base chemicals
at a recovery rate of 100% were 'technically and industrially
impossible,'" according to a former employee. Moreover, the report
alleged that "Executives from a division of key partner
Thyssenkrupp, who Loop entered into a 'global alliance agreement'
with in December 2018, told us their partnership is on 'indefinite'
hold and that Loop 'underestimated' both costs and complexities of
its process."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.78, or over 32%, to
close at $7.83 per share on October 13, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
Then, on October 16, 2020, after the market closed, Loop disclosed
that it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") for information "regarding testing,
testing results and details of results from [Loop's] Gen I and Gen
II technologies and certain of [its] partnerships and agreements."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell as much as 7% in
intraday trading on October 19, 2020, the first trading session
after the SEC subpoena was disclosed.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Loop
scientists were encouraged to misrepresent the results of Loop's
purportedly proprietary process; (2) Loop did not have the
technology to break PET down to its base chemicals at a recovery
rate of 100%; (3) as a result, Loop was unlikely to realize the
purported benefits of Loop's announced partnerships with Indorama
and Thyssenkrupp; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Loop securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 14,
2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a
member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you
may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Charles H. Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
MERIDIAN LODGING: Banks BIPA Class Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHONNETTE BANKS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MERIDIAN LODGING ASSOCIATES, LLP d/b/a
HOMEWOOD SUITES BY HILTON, Case No. 2020-CH-03658, was removed from
the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
November 27, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-07030 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act by (1) failing to obtain
written releases from employees before it collected, used, and
stored their biometric identifiers and biometric information; (2)
failing to inform employees in writing that their biometric
identifiers and biometric information were being collected and
stored; (3) failing to inform employees in writing of the specific
purpose and length of term for which their biometric identifiers or
biometric information was being collected, stored, and used; and
(4) failing to publicly provide a retention schedule or guideline
for permanently destroying its employees' biometric identifiers and
biometric information.
Meridian Lodging Associates, LLP, d/b/a Homewood Suites By Hilton,
is an American chain of all-suite residential-style hotels managed
by the Hilton Worldwide, with its principal place of business
located in Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Eric L. Samore, Esq.
Kathryn V. Long, Esq.
SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 894-3200
E-mail: esamore@salawus.com
klong@salawus.com
NABRIVA THERAPEUTICS: Settlement Reached in CONTEPO Reports Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nabriva Therapeutics plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the parties in the
consolidated class action suit related to the marketing approval of
CONTEPO, mediated the case and reached a settlement, subject to
court approval.
On May 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Larry Enriquez v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted Schroeder, No.
19-cv-04183.
The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019.
The complaint generally alleged that the Company and its Chief
Executive Officer violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and omitting to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) to the Food and Drug
Administration for marketing approval of CONTEPO for the treatment
of cUTI in the United States and the likelihood of such approval.
The complaint sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, and
other costs.
On May 22, 2019, a second putative class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Anthony Manna v. Nabriva Therapeutics PLC, and Ted
Schroeder, No. 19-cv-04713.
The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's securities between November 1, 2018 and
April 30, 2019.
The allegations made in the Manna complaint were similar to those
made in the Enriquez complaint, and the Manna complaint sought
similar relief.
On May 24, 2019, these two lawsuits were consolidated by the
court. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the
plaintiff's selection of lead counsel on July 22, 2019.
On September 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding the Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Medical
Officer as defendants; the amended complaint purports to be brought
on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's securities
between January 4, 2019 through April 30, 2019, and otherwise
includes allegations similar to those made in the original
complaints and seeks similar relief.
The Company's pre-motion letter to dismiss the amended complaint
was due to the plaintiff on October 21, 2019, and the plaintiff
responded to the Company via a letter on November 4, 2019. On
November 18, 2019, the Company filed a pre-motion letter to dismiss
with the Court, seeking leave to move to dismiss and setting forth
why a motion to dismiss is warranted.
On April 28, 2020, the Court dismissed the amended complaint
without prejudice and granted the plaintiff twenty days to show
cause why the lawsuit should not be dismissed with prejudice.
On May 8, 2020, the Court granted the plaintiff a 21-day extension
to show cause. On June 8, 2020, the plaintiff filed a letter
application to the court seeking leave to file a proposed second
amended complaint, and on June 23, 2020, the court directed the
plaintiff to file the proposed second amended complaint.
Plaintiff did so on June 24, 2020. The Company filed an answer to
the second amended complaint on July 8, 2020.
On October 21, 2020, the parties mediated this case and reached a
settlement, subject to court approval. The settlement will be
covered in full by the Company´s directors’ and officers’
insurance.
Nabriva Therapeutics plc, a biopharmaceutical company, engages in
the research and development of anti-infective agents to treat
infections in humans. The company was formerly known as Nabriva
Therapeutics Forschungs GmbH and changed its name to Nabriva
Therapeutics plc in 2007. Nabriva Therapeutics plc was incorporated
in 2005 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
NANO-X IMAGING: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors 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 had 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 Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
NEOVASC INC: Glancy Prongay Announces Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York captioned Gonzalez v. Neovasc Inc., et al.,
(Case No. 1:20-cv-09313) on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Neovasc Inc. ("Neovasc" or the
"Company") securities between November 1, 2019 and October 27,
2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Neovasc investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https%3A%2F%2Fwww.glancylaw.com%2Fcases%2Fneovasc-inc%2F[/url]. You
can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
Neovasc is a specialty medical device company that develops,
manufactures and markets products for cardiovascular diseases,
including the Tiara technology and the Reducer. The Company's
Reducer is a medical device that treats refractory angina by
altering blood flow in the heart's circulatory system.
In December 2018, the Company filed a Q-Sub submission to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") that contained safety and
efficacy results from Neovasc's clinical studies, as well as
supporting data from peer-reviewed journals.
On February 20, 2019, Neovasc announced that, despite "Breakthrough
Device Designation," the FDA review team recommended that the
Company collect further pre-market blinded data prior to submitting
a Pre-Market Approval ("PMA") application.
On November 1, 2019, the Company announced that it would submit a
PMA application for the Reducer without gathering further evidence,
against the FDA's recommendation. Neovasc claimed that "the
clinical evidence already available will be sufficient to not
further delay the availability of this Breakthrough medical device
for the treatment of U.S. patients."
On October 28, 2020, before the market opened, the Company
announced that an FDA advisory panel voted overwhelmingly against
the safety and effectiveness of the Reducer. The panel noted
concerns with the Company's clinical data, including "that the lack
of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult to
interpret." As a result, the panel reached a consensus "that
additional premarket randomized clinical data was necessary."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.77, or 42%, to
close at $1.06 per share on October 28, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that the results of COSIRA, Neovasc's clinical study
for the Reducer, contained imbalances in missing information
present in the control group versus the treatment group, including
significant missing information for secondary endpoints but none
for the primary endpoint; (2) that the imbalance in missing
information indicated that control subjects were aware of their
treatment assignment (not blinded) and less inclined to participate
in additional data collection; (3) that blinding is critical when
studying a placebo-responsive condition such as angina; (4) that
the lack of blinding assessment made the primary endpoint difficult
to interpret; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the FDA was
reasonably likely to require additional premarket clinical data;
(6) that, as a result, the Company's PMA for Reducer was unlikely
to be approved without additional clinical data; and (7) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired the Neovasc securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60
days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email
to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at [url="]www.glancylaw.com[/url]. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased. [GN]
NEOVASC INC: Schall Law Reminds of January 5 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Neovasc Inc.
("Neovasc" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:NVCN) 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 November
1, 2019 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before January 5, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/neovasc-inc/#case-form
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. Neovasc's COSIRA clinical study for its
Reducer suffered from missing information in important areas. The
study was not blinded, resulting in a control group less likely to
participate further. This lack of blinding made the primary
endpoint results difficult to interpret. The Company's deficiencies
in its study were likely to result in the FDA requesting additional
clinical data. 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 Neovasc,
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]
NEWSMAX MEDIA: Faces Shortman Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THERESA SHORTMAN, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff v. NEWSMAX MEDIA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-06141 (W.D.
Wash., November 21, 2020) is a class action complaint brought
against the Defendant to challenge its alleged practice of sending
unsolicited automated text messages in violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder
by the Federal Communications Commission.
According to the complaint, the Defendant sent two text messages to
the Plaintiff's cellular telephone number on or about November 3,
2020 containing a hyperlink to the Defendant's Website. The
Defendants used automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) in
transmitting messages to consumers en masse via its short-code
number 39747. The Plaintiff asserts that she never provided the
Defendants her prior express written consent to be sent such
messages using an ATDS to her cellular telephone number that was
registered with the National Do Not Call Registry on or about
December 1, 2006.
As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, the
Plaintiff has incurred expenses to her wireless service, wasted
data storage capacity, suffered the nuisance, waste of time, and
aggravation that accompanies receipt of such unauthorized
advertisements, and was subjected to an intrusion upon her
seclusion and invasion of privacy.
Newsmax Media, Inc. is a multi-media broadcasting and digital
publishing company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter Smith, Esq.
SMITH & DIETRICH LAW OFFICES, PLLC
3905 Martin Way East, Suite F
Olympia, WA 98506
Telephone: (360) 915-6952
E-mail: walter@smithdietrich.com
- and –
Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368-1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com
NEXTCURE INC: Zhou Putative Class Action Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
NextCure, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a putative stockholder class action suit
entitled, Zhou v. NextCure, Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772
(S.D.N.Y.).
On September 21, 2020, a putative stockholder class action was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York styled Ye Zhou v. NextCure, Inc., et. al., Case 1:20-cv-0772
(S.D.N.Y.).
The complaint asserts claims against the Company, certain of its
officers and members of its board of directors, and the
underwriters in the Company's November 2019 underwritten public
offering.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, with respect to statements made regarding
the Company's lead product candidate, NC318.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 5,
2019 and July 14, 2020.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the action.
NextCure said, "Due to the early stages of this matter and
unspecified damages sought, at this time, the Company is unable to
estimate the potential loss or range of losses."
NextCure, Inc. a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed
to discovering and developing novel, first-in-class immunomedicines
to treat cancer and other immune-related diseases by restoring
normal immune function. The company is based in Beltsville,
Maryland.
NIKE INC: Shannon Sues Over Distribution Employees' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case, RANDALL SHANNON, individually and on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated current and former employees,
Plaintiff v. NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, and ADECCO, USA,
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:20-cv-02848-JPM-atc (W.D. Tenn., November 20, 2020), arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful pay practices that violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid distribution employee.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated distribution employees routinely worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek. However, the Defendants compensated them only for
the work they performed from the beginning time of their scheduled
shifts to the ending time of their scheduled shifts, regardless of
any work they performed before or after that their scheduled
shifts. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
distribution employees were not paid overtime compensation at the
applicable overtime rate required by the FLSA.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action
complaint against the Defendants to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages pursuant to the FLSA.
Nike, Inc. is a retailer of sports-related products. Adecco, USA,
Inc. provides workers to Nike distribution centers in and around
Shelby County, Tennessee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq.
Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
OWEN & BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Telephone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
rbryant@jsyc.com
rturner@jsyc.com
rmorelli@jsyc.com
NIKOLA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors that purchased or acquired the
securities of Nikola Corporation ("Nikola" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: NKLA) between March 3, 2020 and October 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 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 CORPORATION: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds Nikola
Corporation (NASDAQ: NKLA, NKLAW) ("Nikola") investors that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of
those who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola securities between
March 3, 2020 and September 20, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
REMINDER: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Nikola
securities during the Class Period may, had until November 16,
2020, to seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/nikola-corporation-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=nikola.
According to the complaint, Nikola operates as an integrated zero
emissions transportation systems provider, which designs and
manufactures battery-electric and hydrogen-electric vehicles,
electric vehicle drivetrains, vehicle components, energy storage
systems, and hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. The merger of
VectoIQ and Nikola closed on June 3, 2020.
The Class Period commences on March 3, 2020 when Nikola issued a
press release entitled, "Nikola Corporation, a Global Leader in
Zero Emissions Transportation Solutions, to Be Listed on NASDAQ
Through a Merger with VectoIQ." In connection with the merger
announcement, Nikola released an investor presentation on March 3,
2020, which touted Nikola founder and Executive Chairman Trevor R.
Milton's ("Milton") experience in the clean energy and technology
field and Nikola's hydrogen production capabilities.
The complaint alleges that, on September 10, 2020, before market
hours, Hindenburg Research published a report describing, among
other things, how: (i) Nikola claims to design key components in
house, but they appear to simply be buying or licensing them from
third parties; (ii) Nikola has not produced hydrogen; (iii) a
spokesman for Powercell AB, a hydrogen fuel cell technology company
that formerly partnered with Nikola, called Nikola's battery and
hydrogen fuel cell claims "hot air"; (iv) Nikola staged a "test"
video for its Nikola Two (a prototype truck); (v) some of Nikola's
team, including Milton, are not experts and do not have relevant
experience; and (vi) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed.
Following this news, shares of Nikola fell $10.24, or 24%, over the
next two trading days, to close at $32.13 per share on September
11, 2020.
Then, on September 15, 2020, before trading hours, Hindenburg
Research published another report, focused on Nikola's responses
and nonresponses to its initial report, entitled "We View Nikola's
Response As a Tacit Admission of Securities Fraud." Following this
news, shares of Nikola fell $2.96, or 8%, to close at $32.83 per
share on September 15, 2020.
Finally, on September 20, 2020, Nikola issued a press release
entitled "Nikola Board of Directors Announces Leadership
Transition: Trevor Milton Steps Down as Executive Chairman; Stephen
Girsky Appointed Chairman of the Board." Following this news, the
price of Nikola's shares fell in pre-market trading on September
21, 2020, further damaging investors.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
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) Milton tweeted a misleading "test" video of the Nikola
Two truck; (6) the work experience and background of key Nikola
employees, including Milton, had been overstated and obfuscated;
(7) Nikola did not have five Tre trucks completed; and (8) as a
result, the defendants' public statements were false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
Investors who wish to discuss this securities fraud class action
lawsuit and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or at info@ktmc.com.
Nikola investors may, no later than November 16, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
[GN]
NPAS SOLUTIONS: 11th Cir. Bans Incentive Payments to Lead Plaintiff
-------------------------------------------------------------------
lexology.com reports that in what appears to be a first, the
Eleventh Circuit recently held that federal law prohibits so-called
"incentive payments" to class representatives, even as part of an
agreed settlement. The court acknowledged that it was forging a new
path in Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1248-49
(11th Cir. 2020) -- identifying errors that it said had "become
commonplace in everyday class-action practice" and noting that the
district court had "handled the class-action settlement here in
pretty much exactly the same way that hundreds of courts before it
have handled similar settlements." But the Eleventh Circuit
nevertheless held that the district court had "ignored on-point
Supreme Court precedent prohibiting such awards" when it approved a
settlement that included a $6,000 incentive payment to the lead
plaintiff.
Johnson was a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The named plaintiff alleged that the
defendant (a collector of medical debts) had unlawfully used an
automatic telephone-dialing system to call his cell phone without
his consent. The case was certified for settlement purposes, and a
single member of the class objected to the settlement on several
grounds, including the district court's decision to set the
objection deadline before the deadline for class counsel to file
their petition for attorneys' fees and the class representative's
proposed incentive payment.
In a majority opinion by Judge Kevin Newsom, the Eleventh Circuit
first held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure "23(h)'s plain
language requires a district court to sequence filings such that
class counsel file and serve their attorneys'-fee motion before any
objection pertaining to fees is due." Setting an objection deadline
after the class notice goes out, but before the fee petition itself
has been filed, was held insufficient to give potential objectors
"full information" and ensure that the fee petition "has been
tested by the adversarial process." That said, the court concluded
that the specific error in that regard was harmless on the record.
As for the $6,000 incentive award, Judge Newsom's opinion relied on
Supreme Court precedent dating back to the 19th century on paying
attorneys' fees from a "common fund": "A plaintiff suing on behalf
of a class can be reimbursed for attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred in carrying on the litigation, but he cannot be paid a
salary or be reimbursed for his personal expenses." From that line
of authority, the court reasoned that "modern-day incentive awards
present even more pronounced risks" because they "are intended not
only to compensate class representatives for their time (i.e., as a
salary), but also to promote litigation by providing a prize to be
won (i.e., as a bounty)." Nor could the court "see why paying an
incentive award isn't tantamount to giving a 'preferred position'
to a class representative 'simply by reason of his status'"—in
violation of the general principle that named plaintiffs who choose
to sue on behalf of a class "'disclaim[] any right to a preferred
position in the settlement'" of their claims.
Judge Newsom was similarly unimpressed by the observation that
incentive awards are "routine": "[S]o far as we can tell, that
state of affairs is a product of inertia and inattention, not
adherence to law. . . . Needless to say, we are not at liberty to
sanction a device or practice, however widespread, that is
foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent."
In dissent, Judge Beverly Martin "disagree[d] with the majority's
decision to take away the incentive award," partly because of "the
practical effect of requiring named plaintiffs to incur costs well
beyond any benefits they receive from their role in leading the
class." Judge Martin instead would have adhered to the "fairness
analysis" undertaken by other courts to determine whether a lead
plaintiff's incentive award is fair to the class as a whole. She
also expressed concern that the panel majority had departed from
the Eleventh Circuit's prior precedent and "take[n] our court out
of the mainstream."
The panel opinions in Johnson may not be the end of the matter. On
October 22, 2020, the named plaintiff and the objector filed
separate petitions for rehearing en banc. The plaintiff argued that
the majority's opinion "effects a sea change in class-action
practice" and "opens a conflict with every other circuit." The
objector, for her part, urged the Eleventh Circuit to require
common-fund awards of attorneys' fees to be calculated either on a
lodestar basis (limited to actual billings) or as a more "modest"
5% to 10% of the common fund. [GN]
OREGON: Law Center Hits Employment Dept. With Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Perry at corvallisadvocate.com reports that about twice as
many Oregonians are stuck in unemployment limbo pending benefits
adjudication as publicly reported by Oregon Employment Acting
Director David Gerstenfeld, according to a lawsuit filed in
Multnomah County Court by The Oregon Law Center and certified as a
class-action suit.
The lawsuit may include 100,000 Oregonians, according to the
Statesman Journal.
Unemployment adjudication is undertaken when there stands a
discrepancy between the amount of income reported by an individual
and the amount of money paid to an individual by an employer.
Gerstenfeld said that there were 41,700 individuals stuck somewhere
in the unemployment pipeline because of the adjudication process.
But a declaration made Oct. 16 by Oregon Unemployment Department
Unemployment Insurance Division Director Lindsi Leahy clearly
contradicts that, stating that there were over 96,000 such
individuals in adjudication.
The lawsuit claims that the state presumes the first 41,000
individuals will need adjudication while the adjudication status of
the remaining of the 96,000 are yet to be determined.
Representatives of the action filed a request to order the issuance
of final decisions in cases of adjudication filed before June 1 by
Nov. 15; those filed after Sept. 30 by Jan. 1; and for the state
unemployment division to return to adherence to the
federally-mandated standard of delivering benefits within a month.
The lawsuit also requests the state report rates of claim denial in
addition to claims paid.
Of the more than 840,000 applications for unemployment received by
the state since March, about 11% are under scrutiny, Leahy said
according to the Statesman-Journal
Federal standards also dictate that adjudications are completed
within just three weeks of the application filing date, and the
lawsuit alleges that recipients of benefits have waited four months
on average to receive them.
Gerstenfeld said that while many claims are stuck in the
unemployment pipeline, about a third of those received unemployment
benefits under the Benefits While You Wait program and that the
adjudication process generally takes only a few weeks.
Claimants in the lawsuit say that isn't accurate.
Leahy said claimants filed between March and July waited three to
25 weeks on average for a decision, and the lawsuit claims some
defendants waited in excess of seven months. [GN]
P.J. CLARKE'S: Taveras Seeks Overtime Wages for Saloon Staff
------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL TAVERAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. P.J. CLARKE'S AT LINCOLN CENTER, LLC (D/B/A P.J.
CLARKE'S), PHILIP SCOTTI, ODALA DOE, and PEPE DOE, Case No.
1:20-cv-09693 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938,
(FLSA), and the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff contends he worked for the Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the Defendants
failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. The
Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiff Taveras to all other
similarly situated employees, he adds.
The Plaintiff Taveras is a former employee working as as a cook at
the Defendants' restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a saloon, located at 44 W
63rd Street, New York under the name "P.J. Clarke's".[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
PAUL PENZONE: Court Certifies 2 Classes & 4 Subclasses in "Fenty"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Fenty, et al., v.
Sheriff Paul Penzone, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01192-SPL-JZB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Steven P. Logan entered an Order:
1. withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and granting
Motion for Class Certification;
2. certifying these Classes and Subclasses pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23:
(a) The Pretrial Class, defined as:
"all current and future persons held by Defendants in
pretrial detention at the five jails operated by the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, known as the 4th
Avenue, Saguaro, Estrella, Lower Buckeye, and Towers
jails (together, the "Maricopa County jails")";
(1) Pretrial defined as Medically Vulnerable Subclass:
"members of the Pretrial Class who are aged 50
years or older or who have medical conditions that
place them at heightened risk of severe illness or
death from COVID-19 such as lung disease, heart
disease, chronic liver or kidney disease
(including hepatitis and dialysis patients),
diabetes, hypertension, compromised immune systems
(such as from cancer, HIV, or autoimmune disease),
blood disorders (including sickle cell disease),
developmental disability, severe obesity, and/or
moderate to severe asthma"; and
(2) Pretrial Disability Subclass defined as:
"all current and future pretrial detainees who are
people with disabilities as defined under the
Americans with Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"),
and whose disabilities put them at increased risk
of serious illness or death if they contract
COVID-19". The Pretrial Disability Subclass
includes all members of the Pretrial Medically
Vulnerable Subclass except those vulnerable solely
on the basis of age or obesity.;
(b) The Post-Conviction Class, defined as:
"all current and future persons held by Defendants in
post-conviction detention at the Maricopa County
jails";
(1) Post-Conviction Medically Vulnerable Subclass
defined as:
"Members of the Post-Conviction Class who are aged
50 years or older or who have medical conditions
that place them at heightened risk of severe
illness or death from COVID-19 such as lung
disease, heart disease, chronic liver or kidney
disease (including hepatitis and dialysis
patients), diabetes, hypertension, compromised
immune systems (such as from cancer, HIV, or
autoimmune disease), blood disorders (including
sickle cell disease), developmental disability,
severe obesity, and/or moderate to severe asthma";
and
(2) Post-Conviction Disability Subclass defined as:
"all current and future post-conviction detainees
who are people with disabilities as defined under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Section 504, and whose disabilities put them at
increased risk of serious illness or death if they
contract COVID-19." The Post-Conviction Disability
Subclass includes all members of the Post-
Conviction Medically Vulnerable Subclass except
those vulnerable solely on the basis of age or
obesity.
3. additionally appointing the Plaintiffs Fenty, Stepter,
Crough, Scroggins, Perez, and Ochoa are appointed as
representatives of the Pretrial Class. Plaintiffs Fenty,
Stepter, Crough, and Scroggins as representatives of the
Pretrial Medically Vulnerable Subclass and the Pretrial
Disability Subclass; and
4. additionally appointing the Plaintiffs Tequida and
Avenenti as representatives of the Post-Conviction Class.
The Plaintiff Tequida is additionally appointed as
representative of the Post-Conviction Medically Vulnerable
Subclass and the Post-Conviction Disability Subclass.
The Court says the individually named Plaintiffs have the requisite
personal interest in the outcome of this case that they share with
all class member and will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the proposed classes. Accordingly, the Court finds the
adequacy requirement is satisfied. Further, in seeking to remedy
the conditions of confinement for all class members, Plaintiffs
have sought "final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory
relief [that] is appropriate respecting the class[es and
subclasses] as a whole." Because the requirements for class
certification under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b) are met, the Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and certifies the two proposed classes and four
subclasses in this action.
The Plaintiffs filed this action on June 12, 2020, presenting seven
claims for relief stemming from the Defendants' alleged deliberate
indifference to their welfare during the COVID-19 pandemic as well
as violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive
relief and/or writs of habeas corpus requiring the release of
certain subclass members and injunctive relief "to abate the risk
of the spread of COVID-19."
In an Order dated August 14, 2020, the Court denied the Plaintiffs'
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and granted the Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Fourth and Eighth Amendment claims against
Defendant Penzone and denied the Motion to Dismiss in all other
respects.
The Plaintiffs allege that Fenty is 48 years old and has stage 2
hypertension, adjustment disorder with anxiety, PTSD, and chest
pain; Stepter is 61 and has chronic respiratory problems that
result in difficult breathing, requires oxygen treatments to clear
his lungs, and has high blood pressure, Crough is 55 and has a
heart condition, COPD, hepatitis, and chest pain caused by stable
angina; and Scroggins is 44 and has asthma.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36YfJZ5 at no extra charge.[CC]
PEABODY ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Peabody Energy Corporation.
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)
Class Period: April 3, 2017 to October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020
The complaint, filed on September 28, 2020, alleges that from April
3, 2017 through September 28, 2018, 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 known to or recklessly disregarded by defendants: (i)
the Company had failed to implement adequate safety controls at the
North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous
combustion event; (ii) the Company failed to follow its own safety
procedures; and (iii) 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. On this news, Peabody
shares fell $5.54 per share, or 13.4%.
The complaint further alleges that, following the fire and
throughout the remainder of the Class Period, defendants failed to
disclose, and would continue to omit, the following adverse facts
pertaining to the feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart the
North Goonyella mine: (i) the Company's low-cost plan to restart
operations at the mine posed unreasonable safety and environmental
risks; (ii) the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable
health and safety standards, the Queensland Mines Inspectorate
("QMI"), would likely mandate a safer, cost-prohibitive approach;
and (iii) as a result, there would be major delays in reopening the
North Goonyella mine and restarting coal production.
The truth about the feasibility of Peabody's plan to restart
operations at North Goonyella was revealed through a series of
disclosures beginning on February 6, 2019, when Peabody revealed
that contrary to previous statements, production at the North
Goonyella mine would not resume in 2019, but was instead targeted
to begin to ramp in the early months of 2020. On this news, Peabody
shares fell by $3.80 per share, or 10.6%.
On October 29, 2019, Peabody disclosed that QMI was placing strict
restrictions on restarting operations at the North Goonyella mine
and that as a result Peabody was forced to drastically adjust its
reentry plan, ultimately announcing a three year or more delay
before any meaningful coal could be produced. On this news, Peabody
shares declined $3.26 per share, or 22%.
For more information on the Peabody Energy class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/BTU
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]
PEABODY ENERGY: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that class
action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Peabody Energy
Corporation shareholders. Investors had until the deadline listed
below to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to
contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal
rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com.
Peabody Energy Corporation (NYSE: BTU)
Class Period: April 3, 2017 - October 28, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 27, 2020
Shareholders with $250,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact
the firm
The complaint alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Peabody had failed to implement adequate safety controls
at the North Goonyella mine to prevent the risk of a spontaneous
combustion event; (2) Peabody failed to follow its own safety
procedures; (3) as a result, the North Goonyella mine was at a
heightened risk of shutdown; (4) Peabody's low-cost plan to restart
operations at the North Goonyella mine posed unreasonable safety
and environmental risks; (5) the Queensland Mines Inspectorate
("QMI"), the Australian body responsible for ensuring acceptable
health and safety standards, would likely mandate a safer,
cost-prohibitive approach; (6) as a result, there would be major
delays in reopening the North Goonyella mine and restarting coal
production; and (7) that, as a result, of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about the Peabody's business, operations,
and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To be a member of these class actions, you need not take any action
at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no
action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish
to learn more about these class actions, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The
Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100,
Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
[GN]
PERRIGO CO: Acetaminophen Products Related Suits Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend and received requests for indemnification
involving its store-brand infants' and children's acetaminophen
products.
The Company has received requests for indemnification and defense
of several consumer fraud claims involving its store-brand infants'
and children's acetaminophen products.
In September 2020, the Company was directly named as a defendant in
one suit filed in the Central District of California.
The Company has also received 14 different claims for
indemnification or defense from 9 different retailers for lawsuits
filed in California, Illinois and Pennsylvania, with nationwide
class action allegations.
The Plaintiffs generally allege that the children's and infants'
acetaminophen products have identical drug concentration amounts,
yet the infants' product costs more than the children's product and
consumers have been misled into purchasing the more expensive
product.
The Company will aggressively defend the suit in which it is named
and is continuing to assess whether, or to what extent, the Company
may contribute in the lawsuits filed against its retail customers.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Bid to Lift Stay in Baton Securities Class Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the motion to lift
the stay in the securities class action suit entitled, Baton v.
Perrigo Company plc, et. al., is pending.
On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the
Company, its CEO Murray Kessler, and its former CFO Ronald
Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company
plc, et. al.).
The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making
similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted
in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York
federal court.
This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv
stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that
will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act.
The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages.
In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the
proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United
States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February
2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely.
The plaintiff has filed a motion to lift the stay; Perrigo has
filed an opposition; the court has requested further briefing from
the plaintiff.
Perrigo said, "We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously."
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Clobetasol Price-Fixing Related Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend class action suits alleging "single drug"
conspiracies involving Clobetasol.
Perrigo is a defendant in several cases in the generic pricing
multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court
for Eastern District of Pennsylvania).
This multidistrict litigation, which has many cases that do not
include Perrigo, includes class action and opt-out cases for
federal and state antitrust claims, as well as complaints filed by
various of the States alleging violations of state antitrust laws.
On July 14, 2020, the court issued an order designating the
following cases to proceed on a more expedited basis than the other
cases in MDL No. 2724: (a) the States' May 2019 case alleging an
overarching conspiracy involving more than 120 products (which does
not name Perrigo a defendant) and (b) class actions alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Clomipramine, Pravastatin, and
Clobetasol.
Perrigo is a defendant in the Clobetasol cases but not the others.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Discovery Ongoing in Desonide & Econazole Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that discoveries are
ongoing in the class action suits related to overarching conspiracy
allegations related to the sales of Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole.
The company has been named as a co-defendant with certain other
generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions
alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of
certain drugs and/or allocate customers for those products
starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013.
The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a)
direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers.
The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and
Econazole.
The court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging
"single drug" conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are
proceeding in discovery.
As noted above, the Clobetasol cases have been designated to
proceed on a more expedited schedule than the other cases.
That schedule has not yet been set.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PERRIGO CO: Litigation Over Contaminated Ranitidine Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2020, that the company
continues to defend a consolidated consumer class action suit
related to Ranitidine.
After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may
potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known
environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its
externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On
October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based
upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made
the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal.
In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac(R) and
other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial
proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re
Zantac(R)/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
This MDL now includes three master complaints. The Company is named
in two of those: the Master Personal Injury Complaint and the
Consolidated Consumer Class Action Complaint.
As of October 6, 2020, the Company has been named in forty-two of
the MDL's consolidated personal injury lawsuits in various federal
courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers
or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of
ingesting products containing ranitidine.
The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some
instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection
laws.
The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New
Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation
of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common
law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence.
The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the
national brand Zantac(R) and other manufacturers of ranitidine
products and/or retailers.
This action has been noticed to the MDL, but the New Mexico
Attorney General is opposing consolidation.
Some of the Company's retailer customers are seeking indemnity from
the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability
relating to these and other consolidated cases.
Perrigo said, "We intend to defend all of these lawsuits
vigorously."
Perrigo Company plc, a healthcare company, manufactures and
supplies over-the-counter (OTC) healthcare products, infant
formulas, branded OTC products, and generic pharmaceutical
products. The company operates through Consumer Healthcare
Americas, Consumer Healthcare International, and Prescription
Pharmaceuticals segments. Perrigo Company plc was founded in 1887
and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland.
PINTEC TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Pintec Technology Holdings
Limited. Stockholders had until the deadline below to petition the
court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the
case can be found at the link provided.
Pintec Technology Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: PT)
Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to the
registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the
"Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's
October 2018 initial public offering ("IPO").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 30, 2020
In October 2018, Pintec completed its IPO in which it sold more
than 3.7 million American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") at
$11.88 per share.
On July 30, 2019, the Company filed its fiscal 2018 annual report,
in which it restated previously disclosed financial results. Among
other things, the Company reported net income of $315,000 for
fiscal year 2018, compared to its prior disclosure of $1.068
million net income. Pintec also disclosed that there were material
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting related
to cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu
Group, a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing
transaction with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.53, or more than
13%, over the next several trading sessions, to close at $3.40 per
share on August 5, 2019, thereby injuring investors.
On June 15, 2020, Pintec disclosed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2019 annual report and that it anticipated reporting a
significant change in results of operations. Specifically, the
Company disclosed that it "erroneously recorded revenue earned from
certain technical service fee on a net basis" for fiscal years 2017
and 2018. Moreover, Pintec "announced a net loss of RMB906.5
million in the full year of 2019 due to RMB890.7 million of
provision for credit loss in amounts due from a related party, Jimu
Group, and RMB200 million of impairment in prepayment for long-term
investment."
By the commencement of the action, Pintec shares were trading as
low as $0.92 per share, a nearly 92% decline from the $11.88 per
share IPO price.
The complaint, filed September 29, 2020, alleges that the
Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to
state material adverse facts. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose to investors: (1) that the Company erroneously recorded
revenue earned from certain technical service fee on a net basis,
rather than a gross basis; (2) that there were material weaknesses
in Pintec's internal control over financial reporting related to
cash advances outside the normal course of business to Jimu Group,
a related party, and to a non-routine loan financing transaction
with a third-party entity, Plutux Labs; (3) that, as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial results for fiscal 2017 and
2018 had been misstated; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Pintec class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/PT
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]
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Choi Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Kenneth Choi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No.
3:20-cv-02331-LAB-LL (S.D. Cal., Nov. 29, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC provides debt recovery and
collection services. The Company specializes in contingency
collections for national credit card issuers, consumer lenders,
telecommunications providers, retail credit stores, healthcare,
utilities, and commercial accounts receivables.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Aaron Stieglitz, Esq.
11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: (323) 979-2063
Fax: (323) 488-6748
Email: jonathan.a.stieglitz@gmail.com
PROPETRO HOLDING: Bid to Dismiss Logan Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
ProPetro Holding Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the class action complaint entitled, Richard
Logan, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., is pending.
In September 2019, a complaint, captioned Richard Logan,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ProPetro Holding Corp., et al., was filed against the
Company and certain of its then current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.
In July 2020, the Logan Lawsuit Lead Plaintiffs Nykredit Portefolje
Administration A/S, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement System, Oklahoma Police
Pension and Retirement System, and Oklahoma City Employee
Retirement System, and additional named plaintiff Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 17, 2017 and March 13, 2020,
filed a third amended class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule
l0b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act, as amended, based on allegedly inaccurate or
misleading statements, or omissions of material facts, about the
Company's business, operations and prospects against the Company,
certain former officers and current and former directors.
In August 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Logan
Lawsuit and in September 2020, the plaintiffs filed their
opposition.
In October 2020, the Company filed its reply brief in support of
the motion to dismiss.
ProPetro Holding Corp. operates as a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, offers well drilling, stimulation,
cementing, and coiled tubing services. ProPetro Holding serves
customers in North America. The company is based in Midland, Texas.
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon
Company (NYSE:RTX, RTN) ("Raytheon") on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Raytheon securities between
February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Important Deadline: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Raytheon securities during the Class Period may, no later than
December 29, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class. For additional information or to learn
how to participate in this litigation please click
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/raytheon-technologies-corporation?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=raytheon.
According to the complaint, Raytheon is an aerospace and defense
company providing advanced systems and services for commercial,
military, and government customers worldwide. On April 3, 2020,
United Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Company completed a
merger and changed "Raytheon Company" to "Raytheon Technologies
Corporation."
The Class Period commences on February 10, 2016, when Raytheon
Company published its annual report on a Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2015, which stated in relevant part, "we
maintain a system of internal control over financial reporting to
provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded and that
transactions are properly executed and recorded. The system
includes policies and procedures, internal audits and our officers'
reviews."
Concerns regarding Raytheon's financial accounting and internal
controls over financial reporting were revealed after market hours
on October 27, 2020, when Raytheon filed its quarterly report on a
Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020.
The Form 10-Q reported that "[o]n October 8, 2020, [Raytheon]
received a criminal subpoena from the [U.S. Department of Justice
("DOJ")] seeking information and documents in connection with an
investigation relating to financial accounting, internal controls
over financial reporting, and cost reporting regarding Raytheon
Company's Missiles & Defense business since 2009."
Following this news, the price of Raytheon shares fell $4.19 per
share, or 7%, to close at $52.34 per share on October 28, 2020.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and
procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (2)
Raytheon had faulty financial accounting; (3) as a result, Raytheon
misreported its costs regarding Raytheon Company's Missiles &
Defense business since 2009; (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Raytheon was at risk of increased scrutiny from the government; (5)
as a result of the foregoing, Raytheon would face a criminal
investigation by the DOJ; and (6) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit
or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell,
Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com.
Raytheon investors may, no later than December 29, 2020, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and
federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud,
breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and
federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force
behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of
dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from
the United States and around the world. The firm represents
investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who
report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the
recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was
not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information
about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com.
[GN]
RE/MAX HOLDINGS: Moehrl-Related Suits Underway
----------------------------------------------
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend itself against several suits including putative
class action suit, collectively referred to as the "Moehrl-related
suits."
In March 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed that, as
amended, brings claims against National Association of Realtors
("NAR"), Realogy Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc,
RE/MAX, LLC, and Keller Williams Realty, Inc by plaintiff
Christopher Moehrl in the Northern District of Illinois.
The Company has since been named as a defendant in other cases that
make similar allegations and seek similar relief.
The plaintiffs in the Moehrl-related suits allege that a NAR rule
requires brokers to make a blanket, non-negotiable offer of buyer
broker compensation when listing a property, and that this results
in inflated costs to buyers and/or sellers in violation of
antitrust and other federal and state laws.
Some actions allege that buyer brokers steered their clients toward
listings offering those brokers higher compensation.
The Moehrl-related suits further allege that the Company and other
franchisor defendants use their agreements with franchisees to
require them to follow the NAR rule.
Plaintiffs seek damages from the defendants and an injunction
against defendants requiring sellers to pay the buyer broker.
The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of these
claims.
The Company may become involved in additional litigation or other
legal proceedings concerning the same or similar allegations.
RE/MAX Holdings, Inc. is one of the world's leading franchisors in
the real estate industry, franchising real estate brokerages
globally under the RE/MAX(R) brand, and mortgage brokerages within
the U.S. under the Motto Mortgage(R) brand. RE/MAX is a global
franchisor of real estate brokerage services with more than 125,000
agents operating in over 110 countries and territories. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
REATA PHARMACEUTICALS: Schall Law Reminds of Dec. 14 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
announces the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Reata
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Reata" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:RETA) for
violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
15, 2019, and August 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before December 14, 2020.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/reata-pharmaceuticals-inc/#case-form
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. Reata failed to produce MOXIe Part 2
study results sufficient to support marketing approval for
omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA from the FDA without
additional evidence. It was foreseeable that the FDA would not
approve omaveloxolone for the treatment of FA based on the MOXIe
Part 2 study alone. 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 Reata,
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]
REDFIN CORP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages to Agents, Bell Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON BELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. REDFIN CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
3:20-cv-02264-AJB-AGS (S.D. Cal., Nov. 20, 2020) is an action
against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
The Plaintiff Bell was employed by the Defendant as customer
service agent.
Redfin Corporation offers real estate services. The Company
provides web based real estate database and brokerage services for
residential buildings. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ROBERT RILEY: Class Action Calls for Better Oversight
-----------------------------------------------------
Anna McKenzie at Local Journalism Initiative reports that a class
action lawsuit against a former B.C. social worker has raised an
important question: should child protection social workers be
required to register with an external regulator?
Robert Riley Saunders is accused of stealing basic living
allowances from an estimated 102 children -- 85 of whom were
Indigenous -- who were in the care of the B.C. government. Saunders
was responsible for these kids as a social worker with the Ministry
of Children and Family Development (MCFD) in Kelowna.
The children Saunders allegedly stole from are eligible to receive
between $25,000 and $250,000 each, as per a settlement agreement
reached with the B.C. government and approved by the B.C Supreme
Court. But what's being done to ensure this kind of alleged abuse
doesn't happen again?
"There should be a mandatory registration of social workers," says
Judith Sayers, president of the Nuu-chal-nulth Tribal Council and
spokesperson for Usma Nuu-chah-nulth Family & Child Services.
The B.C. College of Social Workers (BCCSW), under the authority of
the Social Workers Act, has a mandate to confirm the qualifications
of its membership, but social workers who work with MCFD are not
required to register.
According to court documents, Saunders listed fake qualifications
on his résumé. He claimed to have a Bachelor in Social Work from
the University of Manitoba, when in fact he didn't.
Sayers, who is also a lawyer, says strong oversight of any
profession is essential.
"All professions -- we all seem to have an oversight body. If you
want to check up on a lawyer, you go to the law society."
She says employers considering whether to hire a social worker,
"should be able to go there, find he's in good standing and then go
to the references."
Michael Crawford is president of the B.C Association of Social
Workers, which works to support and promote the profession of
social work and to advocate for social justice. He argues that all
social workers in the province should be registered with -- and
regulated by -- the B.C. College of Social workers.
Registering with an independent oversight body means committing to
adhering to practice standards and a code of ethics established by
your peers, Crawford says.
"The B.C. Association of Social Workers has for decades taken the
position, with this government and previous governments, that the
title of 'social worker' needs to be protected," he says.
"Everytime someone in the ministry is referred to as a 'social
worker', we wonder, is this person really a social worker or not?"
The law firm representing claimants in the class action lawsuit
against Saunders argues that MCFD "failed to properly supervise
Riley Saunders and failed to implement sufficient policies and
safeguards to prevent and detect the fraud and neglect."
IndigiNews contacted MCFD for comment on their stance on
registering social workers with the BCCSW, but they did not respond
prior to publication. [GN]
ROCHESTER CITY: N.N. Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as N.N., by his parent, A.N.;
T.G., by her parent, P.G.; A.H., by her parent, S.H.; T.W., by her
parent H.M.; Y.R. by her parent, E.R.; on behalf of themselves and
all persons similarly situated, v. ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Case No. 6:19-cv-06526-DGL-MJP (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order:
1. certifying the classes and subclasses pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2);
-- MAIN CLASS 1:
"All students with disabilities who were in the last
two years, are now, or will be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Rochester City School District
Committee on Special Education who were not, are not
being, or will not be properly evaluated for special
education and related services as required by law.";
-- SUBCLASS 1.1:
"All such students who were, are now, or will be,
potentially eligible for special education and
related services, but were not, are not, or will not
be, located, evaluated, and/or identified due to a
systemic failure of RCSD to follow Child Find
laws.";
-- SUBCLASS 1.2:
"All such students who did not, do not, or will not,
receive initial eligibility determinations for
special education and related services within 60
days of the Committee on Special Education receiving
parental consent for evaluations because of systemic
failures to determine their eligibility within the
required timeframe."; and
-- SUBCLASS 1.3:
"All such students who did not, or will not, have a
Manifestation Determination Review following
proposed suspensions, as required by law.";
-- MAIN CLASS 2:
"All students with disabilities who were in the last
two years, are now, or will be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Rochester City School District
Committee on Special Education who did not, do not, or
will not receive legally required special education and
related services.";
-- SUBCLASS 2.1:
"All such students who were, are now, or will be,
potentially eligible for special education and
related services, but have not, do not, or will not,
receive the special education programs and services
listed on their Individualized Education Programs
because of a systemic failure of RCSD to adequately
plan for the known placement and programming.";
-- SUBCLASS 2.2:
"All such, students who were, are now, or will be,
denied their educational programs and services in
the least restrictive environment because of a
systemic failure of RCSD to adequately plan for the
needs of students classified with disabilities.";
and
-- SUBCLASS 2.3:
"All such students who were, are now, or will be,
potentially eligible for individualized, outcome-
oriented transition goals and services on their
Individualized Education Programs, but have not, do
not, or will not, receive individualized, outcome-
oriented transition goals and services because of a
systemic failure of RCSD to adequately plan for
transition services and programming needs of these
students."; and
-- MAIN CLASS 3:
The parents of students with disabilities who were in
the last two years, are now, or will be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Rochester City School District
Committee on Special Education who have been or may be
denied meaningful opportunities to participate in the
education of their children as required by law.
SUBCLASS 3.1:
"All such parents whose right to meaningful
participation in the education process has been denied
because of RCSD's systemic failure to translate
critical documents into the parent's native language.";
and
SUBCLASS 3.2:
"All such parents whose right to parent training and
counseling has been denied because of RCSD's systemic
failure to provide this related service.";
2. determining that notice of a proposed settlement is
appropriate pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1);
3. approving the form and manner of notice to the classes and
subclasses of the proposed settlement of the action as
reasonable; and
4. scheduling a fairness hearing pursuant to Rule 23(e) to
determine that the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.
The Rochester City School District is a public school district that
serves approximately 26,000 students in the city of Rochester, New
York.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
19, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/33bejsX at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carolyn G. Nussbaum, Esq.
NIXON PEABODY LLP
1300 Clinton Square
Rochester, New York 14604
Telephone: (585) 263-1558
E-mail: cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com
- and -
Maggie R. Robb, Esq.
Jonathan Feldman, Esq.
EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
1 West Main Street, Suite 200
Rochester, New York 14614
Telephone: (585) 295-5724
E-mail: mrobb@empirejustice.org
jfeldman@empirejustice.org
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 7 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 Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. ("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE:
RCL) between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 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 Royal Caribbean securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Royal Caribbean
Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that the Defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's decrease in
bookings outside China and its inadequate policies and procedures
to prevent the spread of COVID-19 on its ships. Specifically,
regarding global bookings, Royal Caribbean made statements that:
(1) misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19
was relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that
bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; and
(3) failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing material
declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over
COVID-19. Additionally, regarding safety procedures, the Company
made statements that: (1) falsely assured investors that it
implemented rigorous safety protocols; (2) such protocols were
expected to ultimately contain the spread of the virus; and (3)
failed to disclose that its ships were following grossly inadequate
protocols that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a
substantial risk to passengers and crews.
The full impact of the Company's false and misleading statements
and/or omissions was revealed, as analysts downgraded the Company's
stock and slashed their price targets, reflecting the true value of
Royal Caribbean stock. On March 18, 2020, prior to the opening of
the stock market, Stifel cut its one-year price target on Royal
Caribbean from $161 to $40
On this news, Royal Caribbean's stock price dropped $5.33 per
share, or 19.27% to close at $22.33 per share on March 18, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 7, 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 Royal Caribbean securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/royalcaribbeancruisesltd-rcl
shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-323/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. © 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]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming December 7, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
("Royal Caribbean" or the "Company") (NYSE: RCL) securities between
February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Royal Caribbean investments or would
like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your
loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at
https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd/.
You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at
shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On February 25, 2020, Royal Caribbean disclosed that the COVID-19
pandemic would adversely impact its earnings by $0.90 per share.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.55, or 14%, to
close at $77.00 per share on February 27, 2020.
On March 10, 2020, Royal Caribbean withdrew its 2020 financial
guidance, increased its revolving credit facility by $550 million,
and announced that it would take cost-cutting actions due to the
continued spread of COVID-19.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.30, or 14%, to
close at $44.37 per share on March 11, 2020.
On March 11, 2020, Royal Caribbean's largest competitor, Carnival
Corporation, announced a 60-day suspension of all operations, which
prompted concerns that Royal Carribean's safety procedures were not
as "aggressive" as claimed. At the same time, Royal Caribbean also
cancelled two cruises.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $14.10, or 32%, to
close at $30.27 per share on March 12, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, Stifel cut its one-year price target on Royal
Caribbean from $161 to $40.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $5.33, or 19% to close
at $22.33 per share on March 18, 2020.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's decrease in
bookings outside China and its faulty policies and procedures to
prevent the circulation of COVID-19 on its cruise ships.
Specifically, regarding worldwide bookings, Royal Caribbean made
announcements that: (1) misled investors to believe that any issue
related to COVID-19 was relatively insignificant; (2) falsely
assured investors that bookings outside China were strong with no
signs of a slowdown; and (3) failed to disclose that the Company
was undergoing material declines in bookings globally due to
customer concerns over COVID-19.
Additionally, regarding safety procedures, the Company made
announcements that: (1) falsely assured investors that it
implemented rigorous safety procedures; (2) such procedures were
expected to ultimately contain the circulation of COVID-19; and (3)
failed to disclose that its cruise ships were following grossly
inadequate procedures that would facilitate the circulation of
COVID-19 and pose a substantial risk to passengers and crews; 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.
If you purchased Royal Caribbean securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than December 7, 2020 to
ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of
the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of December 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have
commenced on behalf of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. shareholders.
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.
RCL Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10755&wire=1
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:RCL)
RCL Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 4, 2020
- March 17, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 7, 2020
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-loss-submission-form?prid=10755&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Royal
Caribbean Cruises Ltd. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Royal Caribbean
misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) the Company falsely assured investors
that bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a
slowdown; (3) the Company was experiencing material declines in
bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19; and (5)
the Company's ships were following grossly inadequate protocols
that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial
risk to passengers and crews.
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]
ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (NYSE:
RCL) between February 4, 2020 and March 17, 2020, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important December 7, 2020 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Royal Caribbean investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Royal Caribbean class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1966.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.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts about Royal Caribbean's decrease in
bookings outside China and its faulty policies and procedures to
prevent the circulation of COVID-19 on its cruise ships.
Specifically, regarding global bookings, Royal Caribbean: (1)
misled investors to believe that any issue related to COVID-19 was
relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that
bookings outside China were strong with no signs of a slowdown; and
(3) failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing material
declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over
COVID-19. Additionally, regarding safety procedures, Royal
Caribbean: (1) falsely assured investors that it implemented
rigorous safety protocols; (2) stated such protocols were expected
to ultimately contain the spread of COVID-19; and (3) failed to
disclose that its ships were following grossly inadequate protocols
that would foster the spread of COVID-19 and pose a substantial
risk to passengers and crews. 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 December
7, 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-1966.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.
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.
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]
RYANAIR HOLDINGS: Birmingham Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
FIREMEN'S AND POLICEMEN'S SUPPLEMENTAL PENSION SYSTEM, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. RYANAIR HOLDINGS
PLC and MICHAEL O'LEARY, Case No. 1:18-cv-10330-JPO (S.D.N.Y.), the
Lead Plaintiff asks the Court for an order:
1. certifying case as a class action;
"all purchasers of Ryanair American Depository Shares
("ADSs") between May 30, 2017 and September 28, 2018,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), who were damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, members of the
immediate families of each the Defendant, the Company and
its officers and directors at all relevant times, any
entity in which any excluded party has or had a
controlling interest or which is related to or affiliated
with any Defendant, and the legal representatives, heirs,
successors, or assigns of any such excluded party";
2. appointing the Lead Plaintiffs as Class Representatives;
and
3. designating Lead Counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
as Class Counsel.
This is a federal securities action alleging that Ryanair Holdings
and Chief Executive Officer Michael O'Leary violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or failing to
disclose material facts regarding the sustainability of Ryanair's
labor practices.
Ryanair is an Irish Low-cost airline founded in 1984. It is
headquartered in Swords, Dublin, with its primary operational bases
at Dublin and London Stansted airports.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated
Nov. 13, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/2Knzgdz at no extra charge.[CC]
Lead Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Class, are:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Robert R. Henssler Jr., Esq.
Hillary B. Stakem, Esq.
Francisco J. Mejia, Esq.
Ting H. Liu, Esq.
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
Erin W. Boardman, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619 231-1058
Facsimile: 619 231-7423
E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com
hstakem@rgrdlaw.com
fmejia@rgrdlaw.com
tliu@rgrdlaw.com
srudman@rgrdlaw.com
eboardman@rgrdlaw.com
SCANA CORP: City of Warren et al. Seek to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit re SCANA CORPORATION PUBLIC SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00505-MBS (D.S.C.), the Lead Plaintiffs City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and Metzler Asset
Management GmbH ask the Court for an order:
1. certifying this action as a class action pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
"all holders of SCANA Corporation ("SCANA" or the
"Company") common stock, as of January 3, 2018, the date
of the announcement of the sale of SCANA to Dominion
Energy, Inc. ("Dominion") (the "Merger"), through and
including July 31, 2018, the date of the shareholder vote
on the Merger. Excluded from the Class are defendants,
Dominion, and any affiliated persons"
2. appointing the Lead Plaintiffs to serve as Class
Representatives; and
3. appointing Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Bragar
Eagel & Squire P.C. as Class Counsel.
SCANA Corporation is a holding company involved in regulated
electric and natural gas utility operations, telecommunications,
and other energy-related businesses. The Company serves electric
customers in South Carolina and natural gas customers in South
Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia. SCANA also has investments
in several southeastern telecommunications companies.
A copy of the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated
Nov. 13, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/37455jA at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel J. Ballou, Esq.
MORTON & GETTYS
Fountain Park Place
331 E Main Street, Suite 300
Rock Hill, SC 29731
Telephone: 803/366-3388
Facsimile: 803/366-4044
E-mail: dan.ballou@mortongettys.com
- and -
David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-8498
Telephone: 619/231-1058
Facsimile: 619/231-7423
E-mail: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C.
810 Seventh Avenue, Suite 620
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: 212/308-5858
Facsimile: 212/486-0462
E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
fortunato@bespc.com
- and -
Mark D. Chappell, Esq.
Graham L. Newman, Esq.
CHAPPELL SMITH & ARDEN, P.A.
2801 Devine Street, Suite 300
Columbia, SC 29205
Telephone: 803/929-3600
Facsimile: 803/929-3604
E-mail: mchappell@csa-law.com
gneman@csa-law.com
SE COMMUNICATIONS: Gayheard Seeks to Certify Contractors Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GAYHEARD D. CALLUM AND
DENIS AIYANKHEBEOR, On behalf of themselves and other persons
Similarly situated, v. SE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC AND PRINCE TELECOM,
LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02907-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court for an order conditionally certifying a collective pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as codified by 29 U.S.C. section
216(b), and approving notice to be sent to the collective defined
as:
"all former and current "1099" Independent Contractors of SE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC (or "SEC Communications"), who worked
within the three years prior to the filing of this Complaint
who performed work as Cable Technicians in the State of
Georgia, and reported to a Prince Telecom Headquarters."
The Defendants are doing business in communication services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
12, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/398JFo5 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica L. Perri, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JESSICA PERRI, LLC
P.O. Box 50972
Atlanta, GA 30355
Telephone: (504) 302-7802
Facsimile: (504) 304-4759 Fax
E-mail: jessiperri@gmail.com
- and -
Chelsea B. Cusimano, Esq.
Douglas R. Kraus, Esq.
BRENER & KRAUS, LLC
3640 Magazine Street
New Orleans, LA 70115
Telephone: (504) 302-7802
Facsimile: (504) 304-4759
E-mail: cbcusimano@brenerlawfirm.com
dkraus@brenerlawfirm.com
SECUKUS TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification Bid Denied in Angus Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUGLAS ANGUS, v. TIMOTHY
C. WARD, Commissioner, D.O.C.; DEPUTY WARDEN IRWIN; WARDEN BOBBIT;
J-PAY, SECUKUS TECHNOLOGIES; and GEORGIA STATE LEGISLATURE, Case
No. 6:20-cv-00108-RSB-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered Brian
K. Epps issued an Order:
1. granting the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis; and
2. denying the Plaintiff's motions for appointment of
counsel and class certification
Judge Epps explained a prerequisite for class action certification
is a finding by the Court that the representative party can "fairly
and adequately protect the interest of the class." However, courts
have repeatedly held a pro se plaintiff is not an adequate class
representative and may not litigate on behalf of others. Because
the Court denies Plaintiff's motion for the appointment of class
counsel and it is well-settled a pro se plaintiff cannot be an
adequate class representative, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion
for class certification. If Plaintiff fails to respond to this
Order with the above-described in forma pauperis papers within 30
days, the Court will presume that Plaintiff desires to have this
case voluntarily dismissed and will dismiss this action, without
prejudice.
Securus Technologies is a prison communications firm.
A copy of the Court's Order dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/396zXm7 at no extra charge.[CC]
SYNCREON NORTH AMERICA: Scott Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHACARAH SCOTT and JOSHUA
TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. SYNCREON NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
3:19-cv-00164-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an
order:
1. granting preliminary approval of the Parties' proposed
Class Action Settlement Agreement;
2. certifying the proposed Settlement Class for settlement
purposes:
"all individuals employed by Defendant any time between
June 1, 2018 and June 22, 2018 whose biometric identifiers
and/or biometric information were captured, collected,
obtained, stored, disseminated, transmitted or used by the
Defendant within the State of Illinois";
3. approving the form and content of the Notice to the
members of the Settlement Class;
4. appointing themselves as Class Representatives;
5. appointing David Cates and Chad Mooney of Cates Mahoney as
Class Counsel;
6. scheduling a final fairness hearing in this matter; and
7. providing such other and further relief as the Court deems
reasonable and just.
Additional settlement terms:
-- Settlement Payments:
The Settlement provides that the Defendant will satisfy
its monetary obligations through the Settlement
Administrator, who will send checks directly to
Settlement Class Members who are current employees of
the Defendant. A Settlement Class Member who is not a
current employee of the Defendant need only submit a
simple form in order to provide the Settlement
Administrator with the information needed to remit
payment. The Defendant has agreed to pay $550.00 per
member per member of the Settlement Class into the
Settlement Fund; based on the Defendant's
representation that there are 92 members of the
Settlement Class, the Defendant is required to
contribute $50,600.00 to the Settlement Fund.
-- Payment of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Award:
The Defendant has agreed to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable
attorneys' fees to proposed Class Counsel in an amount
to be determined by the Court. Proposed Class Counsel
has agreed not to seek more than 35% of the Fund in
attorneys' fees. Defendant has also agreed to pay each
Plaintiff an incentive award in the amount of $1,500.00
from the Settlement Fund, subject to Court approval,
and resulting in $3,000.00 total in recognition of
their efforts as Class Representatives.
Shacarah Scott and Joshua Tucker on behalf of themselves and a
putative class, allege that syncreon.US violated Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by collecting employee
fingerprints without providing the requisite disclosures or
obtaining informed written consent.
Syncreon America provides transportation services. The Company
logistics, storage, handling, and other services.
A copy of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement dated Nov. 13, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36VR1Za at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
David Cates, Esq.
CATES MAHONEY, LLC
216 West Point Drive.
Swansea, IL 62226
Telephone: 618 277-3644
Facsimile: 618-277-7882
E-mail: dcates@cateslaw.com
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY: Pawar Law Reminds of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Tactile
Systems Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TCMD) from May 7, 2018 through
June 8, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) while Tactile publicly touted a $4 plus billion or $5
plus billion market opportunity, in truth, the total addressable
market for Tactile's medical devices was materially smaller; (2) to
induce sales growth and share gains, Tactile engaged in illegal
sales and marketing activities; and (3) Tactile's revenues were in
part the product of unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 30, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
TALEN ENERGY: Durnack Sues Over Denied PPL Plan's Pension Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE M. DURNACK, ANNE W. FIORE, TIMOTHY G. WALES, and JEFFREY S.
WEIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE OF TALEN ENERGY
CORPORATION, TALEN ENERGY RETIREMENT PLAN, TALEN ENERGY
CORPORATION, and TALEN ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:20-cv-05975 (E.D. Pa., November 27, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
The case arises from the Defendants' violation of the terms of the
Talen Energy Retirement Plan by denying to each Plaintiff and Class
member the monthly pension supplements payable under Section 5.3(b)
of the Pennsylvania Power and Light (PPL) Plan. The Plaintiffs and
Class members are entitled to receive these benefits as part of
their unreduced early retirement pensions under the provisions of
the PPL Plan, which were carried over to the Talen Energy Plan
following PPL's Change in Control (CIC). The Plaintiffs and the
Class were compelled to retire years earlier than each had planned
because of their employment terminations following PPL's CIC.
In violation of their duties to pay the Plaintiffs and the Class
all benefits due to them, the Defendants engaged in bad faith and
did not faithfully carry out the terms of the Plan, the suit says.
Talen Energy Corporation is an independent power generation
infrastructure company, headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
Talen Energy Supply, LLC is a company that operates utility
networks, with a principal place of business in Allentown,
Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan M. Sandals, Esq.
SANDALS & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
4 Green Hill Road
P.O. Box 385
Washington Depot, CT 06794
Telephone: (860) 868-1140
- and –
A. Richard Feldman, Esq.
BAZELON LESS & FELDMAN, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 1500
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 568-1155
TARGET CORPORATION: DTO Law Defeats Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
DTO Law, with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, has
successfully secured dismissal of a false advertising class action
filed against Target Corporation.
In Salazar v. Target Corporation, the plaintiff accused Target and
Walmart of misleading consumers into believing its "White Baking
Morsels" and "White Baking Chips," respectively, are made with
white chocolate, even though the word "chocolate" does not appear
on the packages, in the product names, or in the ingredients. The
plaintiff argued that the "advertising, marketing, labeling, and
placement" of the white morsels led consumers to believe the
product was indeed white chocolate.
William Delgado and Lauren Hudecki, the DTO lawyers representing
Target Corporation, argued successfully that "no reasonable
consumer could be misled by the labeling, packaging, or product
placement to think that the products are made with white
chocolate." The ruling, published on September 1, 2020, sustained
the demurrer without leave to amend. The order concludes by
stating, "Plaintiff has had three opportunities to plead a cause of
action against Walmart and four opportunities against Target. It is
evident he cannot allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
action against either defendant." Plaintiff has filed a notice of
appeal.
DTO Law launched in early 2019 with five attorneys but has swelled
in size to fourteen attorneys. Certified as a minority-owned law
firm, DTO recently won the National Association of Minority and
Women Owned Law Firms' (NAMWOLF's) "Law Firm MVP award" and, also,
was recently recognized by the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily
Journal as a "Top Boutique of 2020." The firm represents Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Google Inc., Honda North America, Live
Nation, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, The Nature's Bounty Co.,
PayPal, Penske Media Corporation, Sprouts Farmers Market,
Ticketmaster, Target, and Toyota, among others. [GN]
THOMAS L. CARDELLA: Enger Seeks Collective Status for FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEGAN ENGER, SARAH
INFANTE, and RAMON LOPEZ, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THOMAS L. CARDELLA & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case
No. 1:20-cv-00078-CJW-KEM (N.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
for an order:
1. conditionally certifying proposed collective Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) class defined as:
"all hourly call-center employees 1 who were employed by
Thomas L. Cardella & Associates, Inc., anywhere in the
United States, at any time from August 12, 2017 through
the final disposition of this matter ("Putative Class
Members")."
2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims are sent (via U.S. Mail, e-mail,
and text-message) to the Putative Class Members.
3. approving a Reminder Email to be sent to Putative Class
Members halfway through the 60-day notice period; and
4. requiring the Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
order, identify all Putative Class Members and provide a
list in electronic and importable format, of their names,
addresses, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses.
This is a nationwide collective and class action lawsuit for unpaid
overtime wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
relevant state wage laws. The Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
Members are all hourly, non-exempt call-center employees who worked
for Defendant throughout the United States in the past three years.
The Plaintiffs challenge TLC's unlawful company-wide policy that
forces its hourly, non-exempt call-center employees -- the
Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members -- to perform unpaid
off-the-clock work.
TLC is a global customer engagement contact center that provides
customer services, technical support, and sales and marketing
support to its business customers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Nov.
17, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/35S8cLZ at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
- and -
Mark D. Sherinian, Esq.
Melissa C. Hasso, Esq.
Emily E. Wilson, Esq.
SHERINIAN & HASSO LAW FIRM
111 E. Grand Ave., Suite 212
Des Moines, IA 50309
Telephone (515) 224-2079
Facsimile (515) 224-2321
E-mail: sherinianlaw@msn.com
mhasso@sherinianlaw.com
ewilson@sherinianlaw.com
TRANS UNION LLC: Court Certifies Class in Norman FCRA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's motion to
certify class in the case, DUANE E. NORMAN, SR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANS
UNION, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 18-5225 (E.D. Pa.).
Section 611(a) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") requires a
consumer reporting agency to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
of any item of information on a consumer's credit file if the
consumer alleges the item to be inaccurate. Plaintiff Norman's
credit file reported that a business had accessed his credit, and
he disputed the business' right to do so with Trans Union.
In February 2018, a telemarketer for Safe Home Security, which is
not a party in the case, called the Plaintiff to sell him some
home-security paraphernalia. Norman initially was interested in
Safe Home's offerings. But his initial interest allegedly dulled
when the telemarketer told him that, to proceed to a sale, Safe
Home would need to obtain Norman's credit report. According to
Norman, he refused, emphatically stating that he did not authorize
Safe Home to obtain his credit report. As a result of Safe Home's
request for and acquisition of Norman's credit report, Trans Union
recorded on Norman's credit file that Safe Home made a "Regular
Inquiry" for Norman's credit.
Norman immediately discovered that Safe Home had obtained his
credit report and that a record indicating as much had appeared on
his credit report. The next morning, Norman contacted Safe Home
and then Trans Union. He demanded that both remove the record from
his credit report. Both refused. Norman advised the Trans Union
representative that he told the Safe Home representative not to run
his credit. Trans Union claimed it could not remove the record and
that Norman would have to speak with Safe Home. Norman did. But
Safe Home, like Trans Union, refused to do anything to remove the
inquiry.
So Norman sent a letter to Trans Union formally disputing the Safe
Home entry on his credit report. Trans Union responded the next
month. The response explained how and why inquiries appear on a
consumer's credit report and touted an identity protection product
it was selling. The letter sent to Mr. Norman was not tailored to
him. It was a form letter, automatically generated from a library
of previously constructed form paragraphs.
Trans Union did not remove the Safe Home inquiry from Mr. Norman's
credit report after sending him the first 502 Letter in the middle
of August 2018. So, on Aug. 30, 2018, Norman again wrote to Trans
Union to dispute the continued inclusion of the Safe Home inquiry
on his credit report. In his August letter, Norman also contested
Trans Union's position that a user's written authorization may not
be required to constitute permissible purpose, and that a user's
specific consent to the release of your credit information is not
necessary for a permissible purpose to exist. Norman again
reminded Trans Union that he was contesting neither "specific
consent" nor "written authorization."
On Sept.6, 2018, Trans Union sent Norman another 502 Letter,
identical to the one sent on August 13. The September 502 Letter,
like the August 502 Letter, included form opening and closing
paragraphs, an offer to purchase Trans Union's identity protection
software, and the 502 Paragraph, which explained in general terms
that the inquiries listed on his credit report are a record of the
companies that obtained his credit information.
Dissatisfied with the responses from Trans Union, Norman has sued.
In his Complaint, Norman claims that Trans Union failed to uphold
its duties under the FCRA to promptly reinvestigate any item of
information contained in a consumer's file at a consumer reporting
agency, if a consumer, through a dispute, alleges the item to be
incomplete or inaccurate. He Norman sues on his behalf and on a
behalf of a class of 246,518 other consumers to whom Trans Union
sent its '502 Letter' in response to a written dispute of an
inquiry.
According to Norman, a consumer's receipt of the 502 Letter is
sufficient to demonstrate that the consumer (1) directly disputed
(2) the completeness or accuracy of (3) any item of information
contained in his file, and that (4) the agency failed to conduct a
reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed
information is inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the item from the file.
Trans Union opposes the motion both substantively and procedurally.
It argues that its refusal to reinvestigate Norman's dispute did
not violate any duty imposed by the FCRA because the Safe Home
inquiry on Norman's credit file was accurate, and it could not have
reasonably expected to discover an inaccuracy had it conducted a
reinvestigation. It also argues that Norman has failed to carry
each of his class certification burdens.
In the main, Trans Union contends that Norman's "class definition
is overbroad because it includes people who the Plaintiff admits do
not have claims against Trans Union and are not members of the
class he seeks to represent; that Norman's individual claims are
not typical of absent class members; and that individual issues
predominate because multiple elements of each class member's
Section 1681i(a) claim will require individualized analysis.
Judge McHugh explains that the purposes of the FCRA are served by
allowing a consumer to dispute the accuracy of that item of
information, and for the agency to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation as a result. Trans Union's definition of accuracy
is too narrow to accomplish the goals of the FCRA.
In all, taking guidance both from dictionaries and precedent, for a
consumer to dispute the accuracy of some item of information
contained in his credit report means that the consumer must (i)
call into question the validity, truth, correctness, or precision
of the item of information contained in his credit report; (ii)
call into question whether some item of information contained in
his credit report is free from mistake or error; or (iii) call into
question whether some item of information contained in his credit
report is "patently incorrect" or "misleading in such a way and to
such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit
decisions."
In addition to defining accuracy in overly narrow terms, Trans
Union further argues that its reinvestigation obligation is not
triggered unless the consumer first makes a preliminary showing
that the disputed item of information is inaccurate. The Judge
holds that Trans Union's citation to various decisions of the
courts of appeals to support its argument that its duty to conduct
a reasonable reinvestigation is only triggered when the consumer
makes a preliminary showing of inaccuracy is misplaced. The plain
text of Section 1681i(a) must govern.
In all, the plain text of Section 1681i(a) and the structure of the
FCRA's investigation provisions dictate that a consumer need not
make a prima facie showing of inaccuracy to trigger an agency's
reinvestigation obligation, and no case law offered by Trans Union
suggests, let alone compels, a contrary result.
Trans Union makes two additional arguments to support its reading
of the statute. First, it argues that its duty to reinvestigate is
limited to information supplied by entities known as "furnishers."
Second, it claims that it cannot be liable under Section 1681i(a)
for failing to reinvestigate if the entity that requested the
consumer's credit information had a "permissible purpose" in doing
so.
Like its interpretation of its reinvestigation duty under Section
1681i(a), Trans Union's remaining arguments are misplaced. The
Judge finds that the fact that Trans Union may ultimately have
resolved the dispute against Norman does not obviate its duty to
investigate. Further, the statute accounts for potential burdens
on the part of reporting agencies by providing a number of options
by which disputes can be addressed.
Having analyzed the statute, the Judge now returns to the
underlying facts, and to Norman's allegation that Trans Union
failed to uphold its reinvestigation obligation in violation of
Section 1681i(a) of the FCRA. Trans Union concedes it conducted no
reinvestigation of the Safe Home entry disputed by Norman on the
ground that its reinvestigation duty was never triggered. Thus,
the analysis focuses only on whether Norman fulfilled his
obligations pursuant to "directly dispute" the "completeness or
accuracy" of the Safe Home inquiry on his file, pursuant to Section
1681i(a)(1)(A).
Both of Norman's letters to Trans Union disputed the Safe Home
inquiry that appears on his credit report. Further, both letters
not only stated that Norman never gave permission to have his
credit run, they also made clear that Norman told the Safe Home
representative specifically to NOT run his credit. Norman observed
that Trans Union has the ability to ask Safe Home for a recording
of that conversation, which he believed would reveal that he
expressly dissented to Safe Home's request to access his credit
file.
Further, the question at this point is not whether the Safe Home
inquiry was accurate in the sense that such an inquiry was in fact
made. Instead, the question is whether Norman disputed its
accuracy by calling into question whether the inquiry was proper.
He clearly did so, regardless of Trans Union's view of the merits
of the dispute. Norman took the steps required under Section
1681i(a) to trigger Trans Union's duty to reinvestigate. Because
Trans Union conducted no reinvestigation of Norman's dispute, it
follows that Trans Union failed to fulfill the obligations it owed
Norman under Section 1681i(a).
Having concluded that Norman triggered Trans Union reinvestigation
duty under Section 1681i(a), and that Trans Union failed to conduct
any reinvestigation, the Judge turns to the class claims.
Norman seeks to certify the following class:
For the period beginning two years prior to the filing of the
Complaint and through the time of judgment, all persons residing
in the United States and its Territories to whom Trans Union
sent its 502 Letter in response to a written dispute of an
inquiry.
According to Norman, there are 246,518 consumers that fit the
definition.
Having analyzed the parties' view of the relevant evidence, the
Judge finds that Norman has satisfied the prerequisites of Rule
23(a). The proposed class is sufficiently numerous, Norman's
claims are typical, and Norman is an adequate representative.
Norman has also satisfied the prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3). The
proposed class is currently and readily ascertainable, proceeding
as a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy, and common questions
of law and fact predominate over individual ones.
In the final analysis, Trans Union has adopted a uniform policy as
to a category of disputes based upon its interpretation of Section
1681i(a). But its interpretation is an aggressive one given the
language of the statute and the Third Circuit's decisions in that
area. The Plaintiff has stated a valid cause of action and has
identified significant common issues for a class of consumers, with
the result that the motion to certify will be granted.
A full-text copy of the District Court's Aug. 14, 2020 Memorandum
is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4hlr7dn from Leagle.com.
TRILLIANT FOOD: Mitchell Seeks to Certify Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN MITCHELL on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TRILLIANT
FOOD AND NUTRITION, LLC, Case No. 19-CV-147 (E.D. Wisc.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting certification of,
and approving notice to be sent to members of, a class consisting
of:
"all hourly-paid, non-exempt Production Employees employed by
the Defendant, Trilliant Food and Nutrition, LLC, within the
two years prior to this action's filing through June 20,
2019, who have not been compensated for all hours worked in a
workweek as a result of Defendant’s failure to compensate
said employees for compensable, on-duty meal periods lasting
less than 30 consecutive, duty free minutes in duration."
Trilliant Food provides non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers
coffee, tea, cappuccinos and indulgent beverages.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3nChEci at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 235
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
TURQUOISE HILL: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of December 14 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 Turquoise
Hill Resources Limited ("Turquoise Hill" or the "Company") (NYSE:
TRQ) between July 17, 2018, and July 31, 2019, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Turquoise Hill securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Turquoise Hill
Shareholder Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose: (i) the progress of underground development and of Oyu
Tolgoi was not proceeding as planned; (ii) there were significant
undisclosed underground stability issues that called into question
the design of the mine, the projected cost and timing of
production; (iii) the publicly disclosed estimates of the cost,
date of completion and dates for production from the underground
mine were not achievable; (iv) the "challenging ground conditions"
were much more severe than Defendants represented, and in fact made
it impossible for Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto to achieve those
estimates; (v) the development capital required for the underground
development of Oyu Tolgoi would cost substantially more than a
billion dollars over what Turquoise Hill and Rio Tinto had
represented; and (v) Turquoise Hill would require additional
financing and/or equity to complete the project.
On July 31, 2019, Turquoise Hill issued a press release and MD&A
which it filed as exhibits on Forms 6-K announcing the Company's
financial and operating results for the second quarter of fiscal
year 2019. The press release, among other things, stated that the
Company's "preliminary estimates indicated that sustainable first
production could be delayed by 16 to 30 months compared with Q1'21
estimate in the original feasibility study guidance in 2016, and
the development capital project may increase by $1.2 billion to
$1.90 billion over the $5.3 billion previously disclosed."
Following this news, on August 1, 2019, Turquoise Hill's common
stock price closed at $0.53 per share, down 8.62% from the day's
closing price of $0.58 per share, with over 16.6 million shares
traded.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than December 14, 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 Turquoise Hill securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/turquoisehillresources-trq-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-325/apply/
or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2020 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
TURQUOISE HILL: ClaimsFiler Reminds of December 14 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of the pending deadline in the Turquoise Hill Resources
Ltd. class action lawsuit:
Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. (TRQ)
Class Period: 7/17/2018 - 7/31/2019
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 14, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-turquoise-hill-resources-ltd-securities-litigation-1
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones ERISA Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (UBH), Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 28, 2021, for
an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class:
"Any participant or beneficiary in a health benefit plan
governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA) whose request for coverage of residential
treatment services for a mental illness or substance use
disorder was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or
after June 2, 2017, based upon UBH's 2017 Level of Care
Guidelines ("LOCGs") or upon a Coverage Determination
Guideline that incorporates the 2017 LOCGs, and whose
request was not subsequently approved, in full, following
an administrative appeal."
The Class excludes any member of a fully-insured plan
governed by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut,
Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of
residential treatment was related to a substance use
disorder, except that the Class includes members of plans
governed by the state law of Texas who
were denied coverage of substance use disorder services
sought or provided outside of Texas.;
2. appointing herself as Class representative; and
3. appointing Zuckerman Spaeder LLP and Psych-Appeal, Inc. as
Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Class.
The Plaintiff challenges a single -- already proven -- common
course of conduct by UBH that resulted in the wrongful denial of
coverage for mental health and substance use disorder treatment
sought by thousands of people.
UBH was founded in 1996. The Company's line of business includes
providing management services on a contract and fee basis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Nov.
13, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/36VkvGD at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Abelson, Esq.
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
Christopher MacColl, Esq.
Adam Abelson, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9600
Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
jcowart@zuckerman.com
creynolds@zuckerman.com
cmacoll@zuckerman.com
aabelson@zuckerman.com
- and -
Meiram Bendat, Esq.
PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
8560 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 500
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x.101
Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com
VBFS INC: Carranza FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned as FILI ABUNDIZ CARRANZA, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. VBFS INC.
d/b/a M & M Market Deli; VIRGILIO BRANCO, and FERNANDO PINHO
SANCHES, Case No. 1:20-cv-02635-PAE-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for an order:
1. granting collective action status, under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), U.S.C. section 216(b);
2. directing the Defendants within 14 days of the entry of
this Order to produce Excel spreadsheet containing first
and last name, last known address with apartment number
(if applicable), the last known telephone numbers, last
known e-mail addresses, WhatsApp, WeChat ID and/or
FaceBook usernames (if applicable), and work location,
dates of employment and position of ALL current and former
non-exempt and non-managerial employees employed at any
time from March 28, 2020 (three years prior to the filing
of the Complaint) to the date when the Court so-orders the
Notice of Pendency and Consent to Join Form or the date
when the Defendants provide the name list, whichever is
later;
3. authorizing that notice of this matter be disseminated, in
any relevant language via mail, email, text message,
website or social media messages, chats, or posts, to all
members of the putative class within 21 days after receipt
of a complete and accurate Excel spreadsheet with
affidavit from the Defendants certifying that the list is
complete and from existing employment records;
4. authorizing an opt-in period of 90 days from the day of
dissemination of the notice and its translation;
5. authorizing the Plaintiff to publish the full opt-in
notice on Plaintiffs' counsel's website;
6. authorizing the publication of a short form of the notice
may also be published to social media groups specifically
targeting the Spanish-speaking American immigrant worker
community;
7. ordering the Defendants to post the approved Proposed
Notice in all relevant languages, in a conspicuous and
unobstructed locations likely to be seen by all currently
employed members of the collective, and the notice shall
remain posted throughout the opt-in period, at the
workplace;
8. directing the Plaintiffs to publish the Notice of
Pendency, in an abbreviated form to be approved by the
Court, at the Defendants' expense by social media and by
publication in newspaper should Defendants fail to furnish
a complete Excel list or more than 20% of the Notice be
returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address to be
published in English, and Spanish; and
9. equitable tolling the statute of limitation on this suit
be tolled for 90 days until the expiration of the Opt-in
Period.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective
certification dated Nov. 13, 2020, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3filnsF at no extra charge.[CC]
Attorney for the Plaintiff, proposed FLSA Collective and
potential Rule 23 Class, are:
John Troy, Esq.
TROY LAW, PLLC
41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 103
Flushing, NY 11355
Telephone: (718) 762-1324
VELOCITY INVESTMENT: Viernes Seeks Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD VIERNES, On behalf
of himself and the Class, v. VELOCITY INVESTMENT, LLC, Case No.
1:19-cv-00317-JAO-KJM (D. Hawaii), the Plaintiff asks the Court for
an order:
1. granting preliminarily approval of proposed Settlement
Class:
"any person in the State of Hawaii that (i) VELOCITY has
communicated with, directly or indirectly, for the purpose
of collecting a debt or Velocity sued while not licensed
as a collection agency from July 1, 2016 through April 3,
2019 and (ii) who paid money to Velocity or had a judgment
entered against him or her"; and
2. directing that notice be sent to the class members,
including a date for a final approval hearing.
The Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Velocity
Investment filed debt collection lawsuits in Hawaii without the
requisite license. The parties, after extensive negotiations, have
agreed to a class settlement.
Velocity is a debt collection agency, purchasing defaulted
third-party debts for the sole purpose of then collecting those
debts. However, Velocity operated in Hawaii without the required
license. Its debt collection lawsuits against the Plaintiff and
the putative class members raise identical issues under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion for preliminarily approval of
settlement class dated Nov. 19, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3fwh7WI at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin A. Brackett, Esq.
BRACKETT LAW
515 Ward Avenue
Honolulu, HI 96814
Telephone: (808) 377-6778
E-mail: justinbrackettlaw@gmail.com
VERIO HEALTHCARE: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Announces Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik De Blouw LLP, filed a class action complaint alleging that
Verio Healthcare, Inc. failed to provide their California employees
with proper meal and rest periods. The Verio Healthcare, Inc. class
action lawsuit, Case No. 20STCV37254, is currently pending in the
Los Angeles Superior Court of the State of California.
According to the lawsuit filed, Verio Healthcare, Inc. allegedly
(a) failed to pay minimum wages, (b) failed to pay overtime wages,
(c) failed to provide legally required meal and rest periods, (d)
failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements, (e) failed to
provide wages when due, and (f) violated the Private Attorneys
General Act, all in violation of the applicable Labor Code sections
listed in Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 226, 226.7, 510,
512, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 2698, and the applicable Wage Order(s),
and thereby gives rise to civil penalties as a result of such
alleged conduct.
Additionally, the complaint further alleges Verio Healthcare, Inc.
committed acts of unfair competition in violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec 17200, et seq.
(the "UCL"), by engaging in a company-wide policy and procedure
which failed to accurately calculate and record all missed meal and
rest periods by PLAINTIFF and other CALIFORNIA CLASS Members. As a
result of DEFENDANT's intentional disregard of the obligation to
meet this burden, DEFENDANT allegedly failed to properly calculate
and/or pay all required compensation for work performed by the
members of the CALIFORNIA CLASS and violated the California Labor
Code.
If you would like to know more about the Verio Healthcare, Inc.
lawsuit, please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling
(800) 568-8020.
Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP is an employment law
firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento,
Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims,
contact one of their attorneys. [GN]
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Ongoing in Colorado
----------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against a cost of insurance litigation
entitled, Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security
Life of Denver (D. Colo. Case No. 1:18-cv-01897), in Colorado.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company also includes Advance
Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA v. Security Life of Denver (USDC
District of Colorado, No. 1:18-cv-01897) (filed July 26, 2018), a
putative class action in which Plaintiff alleges that two specific
types of universal life insurance policies only permitted the
Company to rely upon the policyholder's expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase the cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors not only
in the administration of the policies over time, but also in the
decision to increase insurance costs beginning in approximately
October 2015.
Plaintiff alleges a breach of contract and seeks class
certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Advance Trust COI Class Suit Underway in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the company
continues to defend against a cost of insurance litigation filed by
Advance Trust & Life Escrow Services, LTA.
The cost of insurance litigation (Advance Trust & Life Escrow
Services, LTA v. ReliaStar Life Insurance Company) (USDC District
of Minnesota, No. 1:18-cv-02863), is a putative class action in
which Plaintiff alleges that the Company's universal life insurance
policies only permitted the Company to rely upon the policyholders'
expected future mortality experience to establish the cost of
insurance, and that as projected mortality experience improved, the
policy language required the Company to decrease the cost of
insurance.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company did not decrease the cost of
insurance as required, thereby breaching its contract with the
policyholders, and seeks class certification.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and will defend the lawsuit
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VOYA FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Barnes COI Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Voya Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the cost of
insurance litigation styled, Barnes v. Security Life of Denver (D.
Colo. Case No. 1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), is still
ongoing.
Cost of insurance litigation for the Company includes Barnes v.
Security Life of Denver (USDC District of Colorado, No.
1:18-cv-00718) (filed March 27, 2018), a putative class action in
which the plaintiff alleges that his insurance policy only
permitted the Company to rely upon his expected future mortality
experience to establish and increase his cost of insurance, but the
Company instead relied upon other, non-disclosed factors to do so.
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract and conversion claims against
the Company and also seeks declaratory relief.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaint, believes the
complaint to be without merit, and intends to defend the matter
vigorously.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Voya Financial, Inc. operates as a retirement, investment, and
employee benefits company in the United States. It operates through
four segments: Retirement, Investment Management, Employee
Benefits, and Individual Life. The company was formerly known as
ING U.S., Inc. and changed its name to Voya Financial, Inc. in
April 2014. Voya Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and is
based in New York, New York.
VYNE THERAPEUTICS: Savelstrov Settlement Granted Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vyne Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that the court in the
consolidated Savelstrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al. suit,
granted final approval of the settlement.
On November 8, 2018 and January 28, 2019, two purported class
actions were filed in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo
County, against the Company and certain of the company's officers
and directors.
The actions were entitled Silvestrov v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et
al., and McKay v. Menlo Therapeutics Inc., et al.
The underwriters for the company's initial public offering were
also named as defendants in these lawsuits. The complaints
contained identical allegations against the same defendants.
Both complaints alleged that the Registration Statement and
prospectus for Menlo's initial public offering contained false and
misleading statements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with Menlo's initial public offering.
The complaints sought, among other things, an award of damages in
an amount to be proven at trial, along with reimbursement of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert
fees.
The McKay action was consolidated with the Silvestrov action and
the claim for violations of Section 12(a)(2) was dismissed.
The parties mediated the consolidated lawsuit and reached a
settlement, providing for payment to the class of plaintiffs in the
amount of $9.5 million, the vast majority of which was paid by the
Company's insurance carriers, in return for a release of all claims
against the defendants, including the Company and its current and
former officers and directors.
The Court granted final approval of the settlement at a hearing on
August 14, 2020.
Vyne said, "Accordingly, the Company considers the matter
concluded. Menlo accrued for the remaining settlement amount that
is not covered by insurance carriers as of December 31, 2019, which
did not have a material impact on its financial statements."
Vyne Therapeutics Inc. a specialty pharmaceutical company focused
on developing and commercializing proprietary, innovative and
differentiated therapies in dermatology and beyond. The former name
of the company is Menlo Therapeutics Inc. The company is based in
Bridgewater, New Jersey.
WAL-MART STORES: Champendo Sues Over Noncompliant COBRA Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case, WADE CHAMPENDO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.;
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE WALMART STORES, INC. ASSOCIATES'
HEALTH AND WELFARE PLAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00919-JLB-NPM
(M.D. Fla., Nov. 20, 2020), alleges violation of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), as amended by the
Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA).
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to provide the Plaintiff with a COBRA notice that complies with the
law. Specifically, the Defendants' COBRA notice failed to identify
the Plan Administrator, and it did not bother providing any of its
required contact information. The Defendants also failed to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
coverage upon the occurrence of a "qualifying event" as defined by
the statute.
Walmart Inc. operates discount stores, supercenters, and
neighborhood markets. The Company offers merchandise such as
apparel, house wares, small appliances, electronics, musical
instruments, books, home improvement, shoes, jewelry, toddler,
games, household essentials, pets, pharmaceutical products, party
supplies, and automotive tools. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
lcabassa@wfclaw.com
- and -
Chad A. Justice, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE, LLC
1205 N. Franklin St., Suite 326
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 254-1777
Facsimile: (813) 254-3999
E-mail: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com
WELLS FARGO: ClaimsFiler Reminds of Dec. 29 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the Wells Fargo & Company
securities class action lawsuit:
Wells Fargo & Company (WFC)
Class Period: 10/13/2017 - 10/13/2020
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 29, 2020
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-wells-fargo-amp-company-securities-litigation-4
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations. [GN]
WEST VIRGINIA: Health Care Policies Discriminatory, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
wvmetronews.com reports that a class-action federal lawsuit was
filed challenging 'discriminatory' health care policies in West
Virginia.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia on behalf of Christopher Fain, a Medicaid
participant and Zachary Martell and Brian McNemar, a dependent and
state employee, respectively. The suit was filed by Lambda Legal,
Nichols Kaster, PLLP, and the Employment Law Center, PLLC to
challenge the ban on transgender health care coverage.
"Transgender and nonbinary West Virginians are denied coverage for
essential, and sometimes life-saving, gender-confirming care, while
cisgender West Virginians receive coverage for the same kinds of
care as a matter of course," said Avatara Smith-Carrington in a
release, a Tyron Garner Memorial Fellow at Lambda Legal and lead
attorney on the case.
"The exclusions of gender-confirming care in West Virginia's state
health plans are unconstitutional and discriminatory, and deny
transgender and nonbinary West Virginians basic dignity, equality,
and respect."
The lawsuit, Fain v. Crouch, is a class action lawsuit challenging
blanket exclusions of coverage for gender-confirming care in West
Virginia's state health plans, a release said. The blanket
exclusions of coverage for care are stated expressly in the health
plans offered to Medicaid participants and to state employees.
West Virginia's state health plans serve approximately 564,000
Medicaid participants and 15,000 state employees.
Andrew Schneider, the executive director of Fairness West Virginia
said during the virtual press conference that 40% of transgender
people in the state are on Medicaid or state-run PEIA.
"This care can be live-saving. It's time to ditch the exclusions
and have state health plans that provide coverage free from
discrimination," Schneider said during the announcement.
Christopher Fain, who studies nonprofit leadership at Marshall
University and works at a clothing store in Huntington, spoke. He
is enrolled in Medicaid, the nation's largest healthcare provider
for low-income individuals, but the program does not cover his
testosterone prescription, according to Lambda Legal. The firm said
that forces Fain to cover the cost of his care out-of-pocket.
Lambda Legal said the Medicaid plan's exclusion of coverage for his
care has caused Fain economic hardship and humiliation.
"No one should have the door slammed on them while they're just
trying to access basic healthcare," Fain, 44, said in a release.
Christopher Fain on the left and Zachary Martell with Brian McNemar
on the right.
"But that's what these discriminatory exclusions do to people just
because they're transgender. This health care is about my very
survival, and the health and survival of thousands of other
transgender people in our community forced to go without care
because of these exclusions. We feel like we are being swept under
the rug, treated as if we don't exist, and that is not okay."
Martell is married to Brian McNemar, who works as an accountant at
a state hospital. Both Martell and McNemar rely on the state
employee health plan for coverage.
Martell, who receives coverage for care as McNemar's dependent, has
been denied coverage both for his prescriptions and office visits
with his healthcare provider because the state employee health
plans explicitly exclude coverage of "treatments associated with
gender dysphoria," according to the legal team.
Martell and McNemar are then forced to pay out-of-pocket for
coverage.
Lambda Legal has filed similar lawsuits against other states that
include blanket exclusions for gender-confirming in state employee
health plans including Alaska and North Carolina.
Smith-Carrington, Tara Borelli, Sasha Buchert, and Nora Huppert are
handling the matter for Lambda Legal. They are joined by Anna
Prakash and Nicole Schladt of Nichols Kaster PLLP; and Walt Auvil
of the Employment Law Center, PLLC. [GN]
WIDEOPENWEST INC: Mediation in Kirkland Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2020, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2020, that mediation is
ongoing in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Kirkland.
et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five
separate class-action lawsuits against WideOpenWest, certain
individual defendants, and the private equity sponsors and
underwriters of the May 2017 initial public offering.
The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
1933 Securities Act. The three actions filed in New York have been
consolidated as Kirkland. et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al.,
653248/2018.
The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court,
have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the
Kirkland action.
The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that the Defendants made or
caused misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering
(IPO).
On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss
all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court
denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the
Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed.
The court is considering a litigation schedule that anticipates
trial in 2022 or 2023. Mediation is scheduled for November 6, 2020.
The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims to be without merit and
is vigorously defending against them.
WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high-speed data, cable television, and
digital telephony services to residential and business services
customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as
WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc.
in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in
Englewood, Colorado.
WRAP TECHNOLOGIES: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Fluidigm Corporation. You can
review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the links below or you
may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations
Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at
212-697-6484.
If you suffered a loss, you can 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. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.
The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice. An
investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.
Wrap Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:WRTC)
Class Period: April 29, 2020 - September 23, 2020
Deadline: November 23, 2020
For more info: www.bgandg.com/wrtc
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company had concealed the results of the
LAPD BolaWrap pilot program, which demonstrated that the BolaWrap
was ineffective, expensive, and sparingly used in the field; and
(2) 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. [GN]
ZOSANO PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of December 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
December 28, 2020 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zosano Pharma Corporation ("Zosano" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ZSAN) securities between February 13, 2017 and
September 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Zosano investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On September 30, 2020, the Company revealed that it received "a
discipline review letter (DRL) from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in connection with the Qtrypta(TM)
(zolmitriptan transdermal microneedle system) 505(b)(2) New Drug
Application (NDA)." According to the Zosano's press release, the
FDA "raised questions regarding unexpected high plasma
concentrations of zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from
two pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from these subjects
affect the overall clinical pharmacology section of the
application." The FDA also "raised questions regarding differences
in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects receiving
different lots of Qtrypta in the company's clinical trials."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.92 per share, or
57%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020.
On October 21, 2020, the Company disclosed receipt of a Complete
Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the
inconsistencies identified in the DRL, the FDA recommended that the
Zosano conduct a repeat bioequivalence study between three of the
lots used during development.
On this news, Zosano's stock price fell $0.17 per share, or 27%, to
close at $0.4441 per share on October 21, 2020.
The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's
clinical results reflected differences in zolmitriptan exposures
observed between subjects receiving different lots; (2) that
pharmocokinetic studies submitted in connection with the Company's
NDA included patients exhibiting unexpected high plasma
concentrations of zolmitriptan; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing differences among patient results, the FDA was reasonably
likely to require further studies to support regulatory approval of
Qtrypta; (4) that, as a result, regulatory approval of Qtrypta was
reasonably likely to be delayed; and (5) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Zosano securities, you may
move the Court no later than December 28, 2020 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If
you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith,
Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike,
Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215)
638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN]
ZOSANO PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Dec. 28 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Zosano Pharma Corporation ("Zosano" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ZSAN) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 20-cv-07850, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Zosano securities between February 13, 2017 and
September 30, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Zosano securities during the
class period, you have until December 28, 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.
Zosano is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company. Its proprietary
intracutaneous delivery system purports to offer rapid absorption
of drug, consistent drug delivery, improved ease of use, and
room-temperature stability. Its intracutaneous patch consists of
an array of titanium microneedles that are coated with Zosano's
proprietary formulation of a previously approved drug that is
attached to an adhesive patch. The patch purports to offer rapid
and consistent delivery of the drug via the microneedles that
penetrate the skin, resulting in dissolution and absorption of the
drug.
Zosano's lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of
zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch. The
Company's pivotal efficacy trial, called ZOTRIP, began in July
2016. In December 2019, Zosano submitted its New Drug Application
("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") seeking
regulatory approval for Qtrypta.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented
and failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, which were known
to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's clinical results reflected
differences in zolmitriptan exposures observed between subjects
receiving different lots; (ii) pharmocokinetic studies submitted in
connection with the Company's NDA included patients exhibiting
unexpected high plasma concentrations of zolmitriptan; (iii) as a
result of the foregoing differences among patient results, the FDA
was reasonably likely to require further studies to support
regulatory approval of Qtrypta; (iv) as a result, regulatory
approval of Qtrypta was reasonably likely to be delayed; and (v) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On September 30, 2020, after the market closed, Zosano disclosed
receipt of a discipline review letter ("DRL") from the FDA
regarding its NDA for Qtrypta and stated that approval was not
likely. According to the Company's press release, the FDA "raised
questions regarding unexpected high plasma concentrations of
zolmitriptan observed in five study subjects from two
pharmacokinetic studies and how the data from these subjects affect
the overall clinical pharmacology section of the application." The
FDA also "raised questions regarding differences in zolmitriptan
exposures observed between subjects receiving different lots of
Qtrypta in the company's clinical trials."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.92 per share, or
56.79%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
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.[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 ***