/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201215.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 15, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 250 Headlines AETERNA ZENTARIS: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set AIRBNB: Hit With Proposed Lawsuit From Host Missing Payments ALIBABA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone is Lead Plaintiff in ERISA Class Action AMAZON.COM INC: Pashaei Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District AMAZON: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Video Content Class Action AMERICAN AIRLINES: March 2019 Class Certification Order Reversed AMERICARE INC: Heriot Files Suit under TCPA APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over CEO's China Sales Comments ARKANSAS: Class Action Over Copays Scheduled for Trial Next Year ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled v. NSW Police of Children Strip-Searches BAIRD DRYWALL: Mendoza Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers BECHT ENGINEERING: Class of Hourly Workers Conditionally Certified BMW AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline BROWN PAPER: Faces New Lawsuit Amid Ticket Buyers' Class Action CANADA: Judge Delays Hearing on Humboldt Bronchos Bus Crash Suit CANADA: Settlement in Suit Against Ex-B.C. Social Worker OK'd CANADA: Veterans Affairs Canada Faces Class Action Over Benefits CARDONE EQUITY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Dec. 20 Motion Deadline CARNIVAL CORP: McGuireWoods Discuss Ruling in Archer Class Suit CELSION CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline CIGNA HEALTH: California Court Stays Santiago Suit Through Feb. 16 CITIGROUP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Haye's Class Certification Bid Stayed COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Denial in McFields Affirmed DEENORA CORP: Panora OK'd to Send Out Modified Collective Notice DESJARDINS FIN'L: Asselin Class Action Can Proceed, Court Says ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in Canada "Loot Box" Payments ELI LILLY: Continues to Fight Price-Gouging Class Action EPIC SYSTEMS: Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Class Action Waivers EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion Deadline FIRST AMERICAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 24 Bid Deadline FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline FIRST AMERICAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline GERBER LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Prewitt Suit Due April 15 GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of $7BB Incognito Mode Class Action GOOGLE: Suits in Israel to be Decided According to Israeli Law HENRY FORD: Class Action Settlement Ruling Prompts Ch.11 Filing HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Consumers Class Certified in Muse Suit HOMELAND SECURITY: Ruiz et al. Drop Class Certification Bid HONDA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Crash Detection Class Action HP INC: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action HUUUGE INC: Klein Moynihan Discusses $6.5MM Class Settlement IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Suit Seeks to Certify Turkish H-2B Workers Class IOWA: Rowe, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Registered Nurses JBS SA: Settles Pork Price-Fixing Class Action JPMORGAN CHASE: Nypl Files Certiorari Petition in Antitrust Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion Deadline KENYA CENTRAL BANK: Faces Class Suit on Imperial Bank Decision KROGER LIMITED: Morgan Personal Injury Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Resumes LINKEDIN CORP: Topdevz Sues Over Inaccurate Advertising Metrics LYFT INC: Faces Class Action in California Over WAV Services LYFT INC: Loses Bid to Overturn Calif. Supreme Court Ruling MAKER: Class Action Over Collateralized Debt Positions Ongoing MCDONALD'S: Black Franchisees File Racial Discrimination Lawsuit MEDELA LLC: Faces Angeles ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Files Class Suit in W.D. Oklahoma MOBILELINK LOUISIANA: Scott, et al. Seek to Certify Class NANO: Otto 'Bitcoins' Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors NEW YORK BEER: Maldonado Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL: Peticos Civil Rights Suit Removed to D.S.C. PLATEPASS LLC: Grabowski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces PUA Applicants' Class Action PRUDENT PET: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York QUEBEC: Court Affirms Low Threshold for Class Action Authorization RALPH GOOD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York RAYTHEON TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 29 Bid Deadline RAYTHEON TECH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline RAYTHEON TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline RAYTHEON TECH: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline RICHEMONT NORTH: Cota Files Suit in S.D. Cal. Over ADA Violation ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action ROYAL CREDIT: Schindler Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement RUGS.COM LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Wesley Suit Over Defective Gas Ranges SANOFI US: Mustakis Files Fraud Suit in E.D. New York SCREENING REPORTS: Wiley Files Suit in Iowa Over FCRA Violation SPARK ENERGY: Bank Appeals Judgment in TCPA Suit to 2nd Circuit SPICEOLOGY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York STILLWATER DESIGNS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review in Cline Class Suit SUPER BREAD: Fuentes' Class Status Bid Granted in Part TEMPOE LLC: Vega Sues Over Unlawful Rental Charges of Appliances TENNESSEE: TN NAACP Balks at Felons' Voting Rights Restoration Law TOOTSIE ROLL: Maisel Appeals Order in Fraud Suit to Ninth Circuit UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Driver Classification UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Al Otro Asylum Suit UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Galvez Immigrant Suit UNITED STATES: Serrano Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ordered to Reprocess Thousands of Claims VASTA PLATFORM: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims VOLVO CAR: Laurens' Bid for Class Certification Denied WALMART INC: Gets Leave to File Amended Answer to Fortney FLSA Suit WELLS FARGO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline WELLS FARGO: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action WORLEY LIMITED: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline ZOSANO PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action ********* AETERNA ZENTARIS: February 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Nov. 9 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. (NASDAQ: AEZS): SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES To: All persons and entities who purchased Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. ("Aeterna") securities on a U.S. Exchange or in a U.S. transaction during the period from August 30, 2011 through November 6, 2014, both dates inclusive, and who did not sell such securities prior to November 6, 20141: THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Court"), that the above-captioned securities class action (the "Action") is pending in the Court. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action, on behalf of themselves and the Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $6,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A telephonic hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on February 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. before the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan (Toll-Free Dial-In Number: 844-891-8300; Conference ID: 817 247 369#) to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 22, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. In the event that there are any changes to the time, date, or method of the Settlement Hearing, such changes will be posted on the Settlement website at www.aeternasecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Proof of Claim and Release ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA 19063, toll-free: (866) 274-4004, fax: (610) 565-7985, info@strategicclaims.net. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.aeternasecuritieslitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than January 26, 2021. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than January 26, 2021 by the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than January 26, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Aeterna or any other Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Aeterna Zentaris, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205 Media, PA 19063 Toll-Free: (866) 274-4004 Fax: (610) 565-7985 info@strategicclaims.net Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Laurence Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. One Gateway Center, Suite 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 (973) 313-1887 info@rosenlegal.com - AND - Kara Wolke, Esq. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Ste. 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (888) 773-9224 settlements@glancylaw.com By Order of the Court 1 Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class by definition, as set forth in the full Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), available at www.aeternasecuritieslitigation.com. [GN] AIRBNB: Hit With Proposed Lawsuit From Host Missing Payments ------------------------------------------------------------ Salvador Rodriguez at cnbc.com reports that a short-term rental vacation host has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Airbnb, alleging that the tech company violated its contract with hosts when the company offered full refunds to guests in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic in March. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco by Anthony Farmer, an Airbnb host in Texas. Farmer had been a host with Airbnb for three years. Farmer stopped hosting with Airbnb as a result of $655 he claims the company owes him from canceled reservations. The lawsuit alleges three claims against Airbnb: breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of California consumer protection laws. The lawsuit comes as Airbnb gears up for an initial public offering following a rough year for the company and the travel industry as a result of Covid-19. Hosts have complained about the company's handling of guest cancellations due to the pandemic, with the company in March enacting an extenuating circumstances policy that overrode many hosts' refund policies. Hosts have also complained about missing payments while many guests have complained that Airbnb has not given them refunds for trips affected by the pandemic. "Because of the Covid crisis, hosts aren't getting paid, guests often aren't getting refunds and Airbnb is just coming out way ahead," said Aaron Blumenthal, attorney at Gibbs Law representing Farmer. "Something that the lawsuit will be seeking is an accounting of where the money is." A spokesman for Airbnb said the allegations of the lawsuit are without merit. "When the WHO declared Covid-19 as a global pandemic, we made the difficult decision to activate our longstanding Extenuating Circumstances policy and provide full refunds to eligible guests because public health and safety comes first," Airbnb said in a statement. "While we know it had a significant impact on bookings and revenue for our host community, we still believe firmly that it was the right thing to do. The allegations in this complaint are completely frivolous and without merit." The lawsuit is notable as it comes after Farmer first tried to take legal action against Airbnb through arbitration court, as stated in Airbnb's terms and services for hosts. To file his case in arbitration, Farmer worked with FairShake, a company that helps consumers file legal claims against companies. FairShake has been working with a number of Airbnb hosts to pursue legal action against the company since March. "Neither the guests nor the hosts were getting that money back," said Teel Lidow, CEO of FairShake. "That's what got us started putting together this arbitration campaign that eventually led to this class action." Farmer was able to file a public lawsuit against the company after Airbnb failed to pay the required legal fees for arbitration cases on time. A new California law allows plaintiffs to take their cases out of arbitration and to court if the company stalls payments beyond 30 days of receiving an invoice. "Them not paying the arbitration was just another slap in the face," Farmer said. "It's shocking and disgraceful." A spokesman for Airbnb contested this claim. "Airbnb has fully participated in the arbitration process with Mr. Farmer," the spokesman said in a statement. "This arbitration is currently active, and in fact the American Arbitration Association appointed an arbitrator on October 30." Prior to the pandemic, Farmer relied on Airbnb as his primary source of income. Farmer used a strict cancellation policy that would have entitled him to at least a portion of a reservation booking if a guest needed to cancel. That was overridden by Airbnb's extenuating cancelation policy. Although $655 may not appear like a lot of money, he was counting on that money to pay his mortgage, utilities, homeowner association fee and other costs that come with running a short-term rental, Farmer said. "This is definitely impacting me during the pandemic," Farmer said. "I'm pissed about it. I'm angry, to be frank, and I'm sure that I'm not the only person impacted." Blumenthal said they hope the case is granted class action status so other hosts who have similarly been impacted can join the lawsuit. With the company preparing to IPO, this case could be of interest to the public, Blumenthal said. "I think the public and potential investors would want to know as much as hosts how much money Airbnb has that, if our lawsuit is correct, is legally owed to the hosts," Blumenthal said. In March, Airbnb activated an extenuating circumstance policy to provide guests impacted by the pandemic with full refunds for their bookings, overriding hosts' refund policies. Many guests complained that when they tried to claim those refunds, they were either unable to recoup the money in full, had to jump through numerous hoops or were not given the refunds at all. Later, Airbnb announced it would establish a $250 million coronavirus relief fund for hosts, returning 25% of what they would have normally received under their cancellation policies, but many hosts who spoke with CNBC complained that they were not receiving the correct amounts or any payments at all. In August, more hosts complained that they were missing payments from the company. Airbnb blamed these missing payments on "a small technical issue." "I want justice for other hosts who've been hurt by this, and I want Airbnb to be held accountable," Farmer said. [GN] ALIBABA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the "Company") (NYSE: BABA) investors concerning the Company's possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Alibaba 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/alibaba-group-holding-limited/. 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. Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), an online microlending company that operates Alipay, one of the largest mobile and online payments platforms. On October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its initial public offering ("IPO") to list its shares on the Shanghai and Hong Kong stock exchanges. The IPO was set to raise $34.5 billion. On November 3, 2020, Ant Group's IPO was suspended following a meeting between its controller Jack Ma, executive chairman Eric Jing, Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu and regulatory authorities in China. According to the Shanghai Stock Exchange, Ant Group had "reported significant issues such as the changes in financial technology regulatory environment," which "may result in [the] company not meeting the conditions for listing or meeting the information disclosure requirements." On this news, Alibaba's share price fell $25.27, or 8% to close at $285.57 per share on November 3, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Alibaba should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] ALLSTATE CORP: Cutrone is Lead Plaintiff in ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- GlassBYTES.com reports that Katherine Cutrone became the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against her former employer, Allstate Corp. (Allstate). Cutrone filed the class action complaint last alleging current and former employees have lost more than $65 million in retirement savings because "Allstate failed to remove a suite of underperforming investment funds from its retirement plan." Cutrone claims Allstate violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). "Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to prudently select and monitor the [retirement] plan's investment options. Specifically, they loaded the plan with poorly performing targeted retirement-age funds called the Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts and then kept these Funds on the Plan's investment menu throughout the class period despite their continued underperformance," a portion of Cutrone's class action complaint reads. The Northern Trust Focus Target Retirement Trusts have performed worse than 70% to 90% of its peer funds for nearly a decade, according to Cutrone. The funds have also consistently failed to meet their benchmark indexes since Northern Star launched them in 2010, according to the class action complaint. Allstate's plan provides retirement income for current employees, former employees and beneficiaries. Cutrone stated the insurance company has more than $5 billion in assets under management, with more than $763 million being invested among 11 Northern Trust funds. Cutrone asked the presiding judge to order that Allstate make good on the losses it has caused her and similarly situated plan participants, disgorge any profits the company made by allegedly breaching its fiduciary duties and reform the plan to include "only prudent investments," among other requests. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Pashaei Suit Transferred to Calif. Central District ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Arash Pashaei, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, was transferred from the Los Angeles County Superior Court with the assigned Case No. 20STCV28280 to the United States District Court Central District of California on Dec. 2, 2020, and assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-10955. The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Civil Rights: Other filed as a Civil Miscellaneous Case. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company based in Seattle, Washington, which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Rolf Adler, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 229-7000 Fax: (213) 229-7520 Email: dadler@gibsondunn.com AMAZON: Seeks Dismissal of Prime Video Content Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Niche Gamer reports that Amazon is arguing users do not actually own the content that they purchase from their Prime Video streaming platform, defending their ability to cut off a customer from their account, which also cuts off their access to any purchased content. In April of 2016 Amanda Caudel sued Amazon for unfair competition and false advertising (via Hollywood Reporter), claiming the company "secretly reserves the right" to end their access to purchased content from Prime Video. Her putative class action suit was filed on behalf of herself and any California residents who bought content from Prime Video from then to now. Now, Amazon is arguing when a user buys content from their platform, what they're really paying for is a limited license for "on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time" and they're also warned of this in their terms of use. Amazon's newly filed motion dismisses her complaint, arguing she lacks any real standing to sue them because she hasn't been injured, while also noting she's bought 13 video titles from Prime Video since filing her complaint. "Plaintiff claims that Defendant Amazon's Prime Video service, which allows consumers to purchase video content for streaming or download, misleads consumers because sometimes that video content might later become unavailable if a third-party rights' holder revokes or modifies Amazon's license," attorney David Biderman writes in the motion. "The Complaint points vaguely to online commentary about this alleged potential harm but does not identify any Prime Video purchase unavailable to Plaintiff herself. In fact, all of the Prime Video content that Plaintiff has ever purchased remains available." Amazon also argued that their store requires users to agree to their user agreement, which also explain that some content may suddenly become unavailable later. "The most relevant agreement here -- the Prime Video Terms of Use -- is presented to consumers every time they buy digital content on Amazon Prime Video," Biderman wrote. "These Terms of Use expressly state that purchasers obtain only a limited license to view video content and that purchased content may become unavailable due to provider license restriction or other reasons." Lastly, Amazon naturally argues it doesn't matter whether or not Caudel read the fine print or not, by using their store and service she is bound by their user agreement. "An individual does not need to read an agreement in order to be bound by it," writes Biderman. "A merchant term of service agreement in an online consumer transaction is valid and enforceable when the consumer had reasonable notice of the terms of service." [GN] AMERICAN AIRLINES: March 2019 Class Certification Order Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL FERRERAS, EDWIN GONZALEZ, DOUG BILLITZ, SCOTT ELLENTUCK, DENIS LIPPENS, RUEBEN RAMIREZ, MASOUD ZABIHIALAM, CHRISTOPHER FAUST and RAMON COCA on behalf of themselves and all others Case No. 2:16-cv-02427-CCC-JAD similarly situated, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-02427-CCC-JAD (D.N.J., Filed April 29, 2016), the Hon. Judge Claire C. Cecchi entered an order reversing the class certification order dated March 6, 2019. In accordance with Local Rule 79.4, the Court enters the reversal order implementing the Third Circuit's Judgment dated December 24, 2019. This case involves claims for overtime wages brought by employees of American Airlines, Inc. The employees allege that American violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law because the airline's timekeeping system defaults to paying employees based on their work schedules, even if they work additional hours outside of their shifts and in excess of 40 hours per week. The employees brought their claims as a putative class action and moved for class certification. The District Court decided that all of the requirements for class certification, as set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, were met, and it thus certified the class. American appeals that order, arguing that the District Court did not conduct a rigorous analysis and that several of the requirements of Rule 23, including commonality and predominance, were not met. American argues that this case cannot proceed as a class action because determining when each employee was actually working will necessarily require individualized inquiries. The Third Circuit agreed and reversed the order of the District Court. American Airlines is a major American airline headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. A copy of the District Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37VolQI at no extra charge.[CC] AMERICARE INC: Heriot Files Suit under TCPA ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Americare, Inc. The case is styled as Mary Heriot, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Americare, Inc., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-04178-MGL (D. S.C., Dec. 2, 2020). The docket of the case states the nature of suit as Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) filed pursuant to the Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Americare is a licensed home care agency that provides a wide range of health care services to the Greater New York area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Violet Elizabeth Wright, Esq. V Elizabeth Wright Law Office 217 East Park Avenue Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 326-5271 Fax: (864) 233-4567 Email: bethwrightattorney@gmail.com APPLE INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over CEO's China Sales Comments ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel at insurancejournal.com reports that Apple Inc has been ordered to face a proposed class-action lawsuit by shareholders who accused Chief Executive Tim Cook of concealing falling demand for iPhones in China, resulting in billions of dollars of investor losses. In a decision, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers said shareholders led by a UK pension fund can sue over Cook's comment on a Nov. 1, 2018, analyst call that while Apple was facing sales pressure in some emerging markets, "I would not put China in that category." Apple told suppliers to curb production a few days after Cook spoke, and on Jan. 2, 2019, unexpectedly cut its quarterly revenue forecast by up to $9 billion, which Cook blamed in part on pressure on China's economy from U.S.-China trade tensions. The lowered revenue forecast was the first by Cupertino, California-based Apple since the iPhone's launch in 2007. Shares of Apple fell 10% the next day, erasing $74 billion of market value. Apple and Cook have said there was no proof they defrauded or intended to defraud the plaintiffs. The company did not immediately respond on to requests for comment. In a 23-page decision, Rogers said shareholders plausibly alleged that Cook's statements on the analyst call about China were materially false and misleading. She said that while Cook might not have known specifics about "troubling signs" in China that the company had begun seeing, it "strains credulity" he would have been in the dark about the trade tensions and their possible impact on Apple. The plaintiffs raised a "strong inference" that Cook knew about the risks when discussing China on the analyst call, and a "cogent and compelling inference that Cook did not act innocently or with mere negligence," Rogers wrote. Rogers, who works in Oakland, California, also dismissed claims related to demand for the iPhone XS and XS Max. The plaintiffs are led by the Norfolk County Council as Administering Authority of the Norfolk Pension Fund, located in Norwich, England. The case is In re Apple Inc Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 19-02033. [GN] ARKANSAS: Class Action Over Copays Scheduled for Trial Next Year ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Pitcher, writing for The Marshall Project, reports that as COVID-19 threatened jails and prisons in March, the Connecticut Department of Corrections decided to waive the $3 fee it charged prisoners for a medical visit. "We didn't want the lack of funds to be a reason offenders were denied medical treatment, especially during the pandemic," said Andrius Banevicius, public information officer for the prison system. "We wanted as many offenders as possible to have access to medical care." As prisons throughout the country have become hotspots for the coronavirus -- and as prisons' medical capabilities have been the focus of scrutiny -- states have been divided over whether to continue to charge for medical treatment. All but 12 states and the District of Columbia charge fees to prisoners who ask to see a doctor; officials say they want to discourage prisoners from abusing the medical system or stretching staff too thin. Rates are set by each state, ranging from $2 to $8 each time a prisoner seeks a visit, according to the Prison Policy Initiative, a national think tank. But low wages in prisons mean this fee could be equivalent to a week's work, and the cost can discourage prisoners from seeking care. While Connecticut and 10 other states' corrections departments have waived all copays because of COVID-19, others have suspended fees only for those exhibiting coronavirus symptoms, and one state has made no changes at all, according to the Prison Policy Initiative. Some states made the changes preemptively, while others were compelled by courts to eliminate the fees. In Arizona, corrections department officials removed the costs after a federal judge found that their response to the pandemic was inadequate. Nevada charges prisoners $8 per visit. It opted not to make any changes to its medical fee policy during the pandemic, but Scott Kelley, a department spokesman, said medical officials within the prison are refraining from charging "when there is clear evidence the medical service is directly COVID-19 related." Kelley said the department charges copays to defray the cost of inmate health care. Waiving copays only for symptomatic prisoners can create problems; in a staggering number of positive cases in the U.S., the infected individuals have no symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that around 40 percent of people who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic, but in correctional facilities, where social distancing and sanitation measures are not always enforced, that percentage can be far higher. At Marion Correctional Institution in Ohio, where one of the first large prison outbreaks in the country took place, 95 percent of positive prisoners showed no symptoms, officials reported. This is not the first time copays have been called into question during an infectious-disease outbreak. Between 2001 and 2003, MRSA—a bacterial infection that is resistant to antibiotics—tore through jails and prisons. Prisoners in Georgia, California and Texas were contracting infections at such a high rate that the CDC stepped in. Researchers found problems including improper laundry procedures, limited access to soap and high turnover among medical staff. Prisoners were failing to recognize the severity of their own symptoms. But researchers also found that prisoners lacked "proper access to medical care," citing copays as a substantial barrier and aggravating factor in the outbreak. A recent study from the American Journal of Preventive Medicine came to the same conclusion about copays and COVID-19, finding that high fees can "prevent the timely identification, isolation, treatment, and referral of cases." The paper recommended eliminating copays to help address the pandemic. Still, some states are struggling with the practicality of eliminating copays. In Arkansas, officials waived them for a month and then reinstated copays; they said they were overwhelmed with medical requests that had nothing to do with the pandemic. Now prisoners who show symptoms of the virus are exempt, though all indigent prisoners can get medical treatment regardless of whether they can pay, said Cindy Murphy, the communications director for the Arkansas Department of Corrections. Arkansas earmarks its copays to fund contracts with independent agencies that review the quality of medical services inside the prisons. Lawyers representing prisoners in Arkansas have sued over conditions including copays, saying there should not be financial barriers to medical care. In May, a judge denied the emergency injunction, but the class-action suit will go to trial next year. "There are things we don't know about this virus still, and things we didn't know when we filed suit," said Omavi Shukur, one of the lawyers involved in the case. "Even medical complaints that aren't necessarily flu-like symptoms can still actually indicate that somebody might be positive for COVID-19."Kaleem Nazeem, who was imprisoned in Arkansas for more than two decades, has been advocating for prisoners since his release in 2018. At the beginning of his sentence, the copay policy wasn't yet in effect, and after it was implemented he said it became harder to see a doctor. Sometimes prisoners would have to visit the infirmary several times -- paying each time -- before staff determined they were sick enough to see a doctor, he said. "When guys have ailments that aren't life-threatening from a self-diagnostic perspective, they don't want to go to the infirmary, because they don't want a lien on their account or to waste $3 to be told they need ibuprofen," Nazeem said. "You can have a serious problem, and if it's not diagnosed it could get worse." [GN] ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Initial Approval of Class Settlement Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINE J. FRANCAVILLA and DENNIS FRANCAVILLA, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC; FORSTER, GARBUS & GARBUS, and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01665-JBC (D.N.J., Filed Mar. 24, 2016), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminary approving the class action settlement agreement; 2. certifying a settlement class consisting of: "all natural persons residing in the State of New Jersey who, beginning March 24, 2015 to October 31, 2017, were sent one or more letters from Forster, Garbus & Garbus in attempts to collect a post-judgment, consumer debt on behalf of Asset Acceptance, LLC, which failed to disclose the accrual of postjudgment interest"; 3. appointing themselves as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class; and 4. appointing Yongmoon Kim, Esq., of the Kim Law Firm LLC as Class Counsel. The Settlement provides for these terms: a. Amount of Payment: The Defendants agree to pay to each Settlement Class Member $40.00. This is a fixed amount that will not be decreased if it turns out that the Settlement Class is larger than 318 persons. b. Establishment and Funding of Settlement Account: Within seven days of the Final Approval Date, the Settlement Administrator shall establish a settlement account for payments to the Settlement Class. c. Time-frame for Payments to Settlement Class: No later than 21 days after the Final Approval Date, the Settlement Administrator shall mail checks (Class Relief Checks) to all Settlement Class members who did not successfully exclude themselves from the settlement. d. Undeliverable Checks: The Settlement Administrator shall update the addresses of any Settlement Class Member as necessary after receipt of any mailed Class Relief Checks that are returned as undeliverable. e. FG&G agrees to make payments in the amount of $1,500.00 to Caroline J. Francavilla and $1,500.00 to Dennis Francavilla, which shall be as settlement for their individual claims and as an incentive payment in recognition of their efforts on behalf of the Settlement Class. f. The checks shall be delivered to Yongmoon Kim at Kim Law Firm LLC's office located at 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701, New Jersey, 07601, by no later than seven days after the Final Approval Date. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), as a result of, arising out of, or in connection with the collection letters sent by Forster Garbus & Garbus which did not disclose the accrual of post-judgment interest. The Defendants deny that they violated the FDCPA. They contend they did not engage in any false, deceptive, and misleading representations and/or unfair or unconscionable means in the collection of debts that would constitute a violation of the FDCPA. A copy of the Plaintiffs' notice of motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement dated Dec. 9, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3maemMd at no extra charge.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Avenue, Suite 701 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Tel. & Fax (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com Attorneys for the Defendant Asset Acceptance, LLC, are: Lawrence J. Bartel, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, Suite 610 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-2780 E-mail: Lbartel@grsm.com Attorneys for the Defendant Forster, Garbus & Garbus, are: Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. BARRON & NEWBURGER, P.C. 458 Elizabeth Avenue, Suite 5371 Somerset, NJ 08873 Telephone: (732) 328-9480 E-mail: mwilliamson@bn-lawyers.com AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled v. NSW Police of Children Strip-Searches --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael McGowan, writing for The Guardian, reports that police in New South Wales have continued to strip-search dozens of children, some as young as 11, despite widespread condemnation of the controversial practice. New data obtained by the Redfern Legal Centre via state freedom of information laws revealed that in the past year, NSW police conducted 96 strip-searches on children. A disproportionate number of those -- about 21% -- were Indigenous, including one case in which an 11-year-old was strip-searched by police. The new data also revealed Indigenous Australians of all ages continue to be disproportionately subjected to strip searches by police. The proportion of searches carried out on Indigenous Australians of all ages rose from 9% to 13% between 2018-19 and 2019-20. In Dubbo, a regional city in the state's west, Indigenous Australians made up two-thirds of the total number of strip-searches carried out despite only representing about 20% of the population. The new figures come after Guardian Australia previously revealed police in the state had performed hundreds of searches on girls and boys over a number of years. Karly Warner, the chief executive of the NSW Aboriginal Legal Service, told Guardian Australia the organisation was "incredibly disturbed" that police have "continued their strip searching of children". "Forcing a child to remove their clothes is deeply intrusive, disempowering and humiliating, and especially for Aboriginal people who have too often been targets of discrimination and overpolicing," she said. "The excessive use of strip-searching is causing extreme emotional and psychological harm . . . An unclothed and traumatic early encounter with police is something that children will have to deal with long after they're allowed to put their clothes back on. "It is unjust, it violates children's rights, and it undermines the relationship that police have with children." Together with law firm Slater and Gordon, the Redfern Legal Centre is currently investigating a possible class action lawsuit against NSW police over the alleged "systemic" misuse of strip searches in the past six years. Sam Lee, the centre's police powers solicitor, said the latest figures "paint a disturbing new picture of police strip-searches during Covid-19". "We already know that police are conducting strip searches on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at disproportionately high rates. But we now also know that this disparity is increasing," she said. The total number of strip-searches conducted in NSW decreased by about 30% between 2018-19 and 2019-20, but much of that decline appeared to be driven by a reduction in the use of the practice at large music festivals. At key music festival locations including Sydney Olympic Park and Moore Park the number of strip searches declined by 78% and 64% respectively. At the same time, the proportion of Indigenous people subjected to strip searches increased from 9% to 13%, despite making up only 3.4% of the state's population. The disparity was more striking in some parts of the state. In Dubbo, 66% of all strip searches carried out in 2019-20 were on Indigenous Australians. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows the city's Indigenous population is about 20%. That over-representation was also replicated in some parts of Sydney. In Surry Hills, a suburb near the city's CBD, Indigenous people made up 14% of the total number of people strip searched. In Liverpool in the city's west, it was 10%. "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should not have to live in fear of being strip searched by police. This harmful practice is eroding good community relations and feeds into distrust and fear of the police," Lee said. Police in NSW have been repeatedly criticised over the use of strip searches. Earlier this year, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission released two separate tranches of investigations into individual searches which were found to have been unlawful. The reports followed a lengthy public inquiry into the use of the policing tactic, which heard evidence of a number of potentially illegal strip searches. Among them include a 16-year-old girl who was left fearful and in tears after she was forced to strip naked in front of police at the Splendour in the Grass Festival in Byron Bay. In a statement, a NSW police spokeswoman said the force would take a "considered approach" when the final report from that investigation is released later this year, and pointed to the overall reduction in strip searches and a year-on-year decline in the number of searches of children from 175 to 96. "A number of changes to policies, processes and training – including a new Person Search Manual, updated verification and auditing processes, and music festival procedures – have already been implemented, which have all been subject to monitoring by LECC," the spokeswoman said. The spokeswoman also defended the seven searches conducted on children aged between 11 and 14, saying they had been "reviewed and deemed to comply with policy and legislative requirements". But Vicki Sentas, a lecturer at the University of NSW – who last year co-authored a report which found that the use of drug dogs was helping to fuel massive increases in strip-searches – said the "differential policing" of Indigenous Australians revealed by the figures showed the need to reform the often-criticised legislation governing strip search powers. "Police leadership appear to have responded to the public backlash against strip searches by sending the message for police to ease off on music festivals," she said. "None of the changes to police policy and training on strip searches have made a difference for how First Nations people are being policed and it's only getting worse. At the very least, parliament needs to reform strip search laws to limit their use." The new figures also come during an unfolding diplomatic incident between Australia and Qatar after a number of women were subject to intimate medical examinations while transiting through Doha international airport. The prime minister, Scott Morrison, described the invasive treatment of the women as "unacceptable" and "appalling". Lee said the case should turn attention to Australia's own search laws. "The strip search stories out of Qatar are disturbing. But Australia also has some disturbing strip search stories and harmful laws," she said. "Although laws vary across jurisdictions, police in all states and territories have the power to strip search children between the ages of 10 and 18. A child as young as ten can be subjected to a full body strip search, and in some circumstances, without a parent [or] guardian present." [GN] BAIRD DRYWALL: Mendoza Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Laborers -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PIO MENDOZA and AMADO MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., v. BAIRD DRYWALL & ACOUSTIC, INC., et al., Case No. 7:19-cv-00882-EKD-RSB (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs Pio Mendoza and Amado Mendez and current opt-in Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying this case as a collective action; and 2. mandating the dissemination of notice to all putative Plaintiffs comprising the collective, defined as: "all past and present laborers of Defendant Baird Drywall & Acoustic, Inc. who, at any time from December 30, 2016 through the present, ongoing, were hired through labor brokers or sub-subcontractors to provide framing, drywall, ceiling, or similar construction labor for the benefit of Defendant Baird." The current opt-in Plaintiffs include Jason Roragen, Edis Humberto Toledo, Luis Romero, Dario Mendoza, Jose Hernandez, Jose Claros, Ariel Palacio, Claudia Argueta, Jose Luis Archaga, Mario Gallego, Jordan Ponce, Ariel Antonio Ponce Munoz, Oscar Gonzalez, Miguel Santos, Rolando Flores, Edson Cruz, Mauricio Mendoza, Santos Gallegos, Alex Bonilla, Jose Bueso, Jose Gomez, and Marco Bonilla. Baird Drywall was founded in 1980. The company's line of business includes providing asphalt tile, carpeting, linoleum, and resilient flooring installation and services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for conditional collective action certification dated Dec. 10, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/37YqVW1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM, PLC 530 E. Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com BECHT ENGINEERING: Class of Hourly Workers Conditionally Certified ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JON M. COSTELLOW, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. BECHT ENGINEERING CO., INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00179-MJT (E.D. Tex., Filed April 27, 2020), the Hon. Judge Michael Truncale entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216 (b), on behalf of: "all current and former hourly workers who worked for the Defendant at the Valero Refinery in Port Arthur, Texas during the prior three years who were paid a single hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours over 40 in a workweek, and did not receive overtime wages at the correct overtime rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay;" and 2. directing the counsel for the parties to submit a proposed agreed notice to the court for approval. The notice shall include the contact information of the Named Plaintiffs' and Defendants' counsel and otherwise be consistent with this Order. The Named Plaintiffs argue that their motion to certify a collective action should be granted because they and all members of the putative class were "(a) hourly or salaried non-exempt employees; (b) who were subjected to Single Rate Payroll System which did not calculate the overtime rate or pay overtime wages in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their evidentiary burden at the notice stage and the request for certification should be denied. The Defendant also argues that if the class is certified, the scope should be narrowed. The Court finds that the class should be certified and that the scope of the requested class should be narrowed. The Named Plaintiffs Jon M. Costellow, John M. Triplett, Carl Hebert, and Bruce Hallman claim that they were not paid overtime for hours they worked in excess of 40 hours in any given workweek in violation of the FLSA. On April 27, 2020, Costellow filed a Complaint against the Defendant, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay him the required overtime rate under the FLSA. Costellow was employed by Becht as a Planner from November 2018 to April 2020. Triplett was employed as a Scheduler from November 2018 to December 2019. Hallman was employed as a Senior Cost Control Advisor from January 2019 to September 2019. Hebert has been employed as a Field Execution Coordinator from December 2018 through the present. Becht provides engineering consulting, plant services, and software tools to the energy sector. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Dec. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3oFAsYO at no extra charge.[CC] BMW AG: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on Nov. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft ("BMW" or the "Company") (OTC: BMWYY) securities between November 3, 2015 and September 24, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). BMW investors have until December 28, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their BMW 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 December 23, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") was investigating whether BMW engaged in "sales punching," a practice in which "a company boosts sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the vehicles actually are still standing on car lots." On this news, the price of BMW's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") fell $1.33, or nearly 7%, to close at $18.02 per ADR on December 23, 2019, thereby damaging investors. On September 24, 2020, the SEC announced an $18 million settlement agreement with BMW regarding the investigation. According to the SEC's order, from January 2015 to March 2017, the Company had "used its demonstrator and service loaner programs to boost reported retail sales volume and meet internal targets." It also stated that from 2015 to 2019, BMW kept a reserve of unreported retail vehicle sales, which is used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the actual sale occurred. On this news, BMW's ADR price fell $0.51, or about 2%, to close at $23.07 per ADR on September 25, 2020, thereby damaging investors further. 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) BMW kept a "bank" of retail vehicle sales that it used to meet internal monthly sales targets regardless of when the sales actually occurred; (2) BMW artificially manipulated sales figures by having dealers register cars as sold when the cars were still in inventory; and (3) BMW's key operating metrics were inaccurate and misleading due to the forgoing facts. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased BMW securities, have information or 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 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. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] BROWN PAPER: Faces New Lawsuit Amid Ticket Buyers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gilbert, writing for Datebook, reports that dozens of Bay Area organizations and ticket buyers are part of a growing list of unhappy customers around the country claiming they're being "stiffed" by Brown Paper Tickets, the ticket-management service known for supporting independent venues and presenters. The complaints, which peaked after the pandemic caused mass cancellations of in-person events, have resulted in a lawsuit that claims the Seattle company owes more than $6.75 million to customers across the country. Over the past eight months, Brown Paper Tickets has left a long trail of unpaid debts for tickets sold through the service. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed a lawsuit in King County Superior Court against Brown Paper Tickets on Sept. 30 after numerous complaints were filed against the company with the Better Business Bureau Northwest + Pacific and the state. The company has not yet filed a response to the suit and has gone months without contacting its customers, organizations owed money told The Chronicle. In March, Brown Paper Tickets founder and President William Jordan told the Associated Press that the company had to shut down all outgoing payments to deal with pandemic-induced chaos. "We lost control over which payments were able to clear and which weren't," Jordan said. "And we managed to piss off everybody." After repeated inquiries from The Chronicle, the company replied with a statement that offered no details about a payment plan. "This is a long process with thousands of events cancelled, postponed, or abandoned, and we are unable to offer an estimated timeline at this moment," Brown Paper Tickets said. The Washington attorney general's suit seeks restitution for event producers and ticket buyers. Two Seattle law firms filed two legal actions against the company in August -- one is a class-action suit on behalf of ticket buyers and the other petitions the King County court to appoint a general receiver to seize the company's assets on behalf of event producers. While the company's apparent cash flow crisis mounted with event cancellations due to the coronavirus pandemic, numerous organizations report that the company started delaying or retracting payments even before shelter-in-place orders began in mid-March. Brown Paper Tickets, which has been in operation since 2000, handles ticket sales for event producers and takes a fee before passing the revenue it collects back to event organizers. But organizations across the Bay Area are fuming about what they say is a lack of transparency and say that the company appears to still be offering tickets for sale even as payments have been stalled. "If you go to their regular website, everything looks fine and dandy," said Allison Page, director of the San Francisco theater company Killing My Lobster, which says it is owed about $6,500 from a March event. "That fills me with rage. People are going to get suckered into hosting their virtual events via Brown Paper Tickets. They have no idea what they're walking into." Comedian and Kung Pao Kosher Comedy show Producer Lisa Geduldig said she had already deposited a check from Brown Paper Tickets in mid-March when she got an email informing her that the check had been recalled. Before she had a chance to contact her bank, the check bounced. Like hundreds of other presenters and ticket buyers, she filed a complaint with Better Business Bureau Northwest + Pacific and the Washington attorney general's office. "A couple of weeks later I got an email saying that the AG office contacted Brown Paper Tickets and didn't hear back so my case is closed," Geduldig said. "It's so frustrating." On Nov. 6, the King County Superior Court is scheduled to hold a hearing to appoint a receiver for the company. Once a receiver is in place, anyone owed money can file a claim. Whether Brown Paper Tickets can make good on all the debts remains to be seen. Tina Marchetti, the executive director of Sonoma's Occidental Center for the Arts, said she was so upset with Brown Paper Tickets' lack of communication that she launched a Facebook group called Stiffed By Brown Paper Tickets in May. The page quickly garnered dozens of complaints, starting with her own account of the ticket service withholding about $9,700 for concerts that the center presented last winter. Brown Paper Tickets isn't the only low-fee ticketing service in the competitive market geared toward small and independent presenters, but none presented itself more as an ally for all the scrappy folks who want to put on a show. On its website, the company describes itself as "the socially conscious leader for ticketing and event registration. . . . We are you. Ticket buyers. Event organizers. Music, film, gadget lovers. Artists, theater patrons, geeks, sports enthusiasts." The company's appeal also centered on its low fees and readily accessible staff. Jon Rosen of San Francisco's Landmark Musical Theatre has used Brown Paper Tickets for two or three productions a year since he founded the itinerant company in 2016. He said that competitor Eventbrite had a better website and competitive service fees, but unlike Brown Paper Tickets, it didn't offer phone support for ticket sales. "As a theater company that mostly focuses on old-fashioned musicals and not on cutting-edge stuff, our audiences skew older," Rosen said. "Brown Paper Tickets was the only company that had an 800 number that would process ticket orders on the phone, and that's 15% to 20% of our audience." Rosen had cultivated close ties with some top Brown Paper Tickets customer service representatives, including its director of client success, Sten Iverson. When the company recalled the check for Landmark's February production of "Urinetown" at the Phoenix Theatre in San Francisco, he contacted Iverson. After numerous unanswered phone messages and vague emails, Rosen said Landmark is still owed $6,800. The Chronicle could not reach Iverson for comment. "I don't have any inside knowledge about their business operations, but if they were running the business based solely on the ticket fees they charged our customers, then all the ticket money would be sequestered and would be available for them to pay us," Rosen said. Another presenter awaiting payment is Sonoma County Roller Derby, an organization founded by Jerry Seltzer, a co-founder of BASS Tickets and former Ticketmaster vice president who had done sales outreach for Brown Paper Tickets before he died in July 2019. The all-female league unsuccessfully tried to collect $2,550 in proceeds from events hosted in February and March. When a promised check didn't show up, Sonoma County Roller Derby Chief Financial Officer Kris Olmstead was told by Brown Paper Tickets that the check had been canceled due to COVID-19. "I feel like they're hiding behind that excuse," Olmstead said. "I believe there are systemic financial issues exacerbated by all of the event cancellations. What's alarming is that they continue to add new events and put new organizers at risk. We were able to pay our vendors out of pocket and absorb that cost. Other producers have lost a lot more." The Santa Rosa Symphony League hosted its annual Dinner Is Served fundraiser to support the Santa Rosa Symphony Institute for Music Education's youth programs on Feb. 27. The celebration, involving nine Sonoma County restaurants, raised about $10,000, and Brown Paper Tickets sent then league president Jackie Reinhardt an email on March 4 that said a check was being processed. "On March 17, I got another email saying, 'Don't cash the check, we're not going to honor it.' We haven't heard anything from them since," said Reinhardt, who left the league earlier this year. "It doesn't make any sense to me. If they're sincere about working through what they owe, we're way back in February, why wouldn't we be a priority?" [GN] CANADA: Judge Delays Hearing on Humboldt Bronchos Bus Crash Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Taylor, writing for Regina Leader-Post, reports that a judge has delayed a hearing on a lawsuit stemming from the deadly Humboldt Broncos bus crash after lawyers for a proposed class action argued they should be involved. Sixteen people were killed and 13 others were injured when the driver of a semi-truck blew through a stop sign and into the path of a bus carrying players and staff from the junior hockey team in April 2018. Lawyers for the Saskatchewan government argued in court on Nov. 4 that, because of the province's no-fault insurance, it should be struck as a defendant from the lawsuit filed by families of four players and a former assistant coach who died in the crash. The claim alleges the province failed to act on improving the rural intersection, despite a deadly crash at the same site years earlier. It also names Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, the inexperienced truck driver who caused the crash, and the Calgary-based company that employed him. Court of Queen's Bench Justice Donald Layh adjourned the hearing until January, after lawyers with the proposed class action said they weren't informed of the province's application until recently. "I take particular notice of the grief that those parents have gone through and to foreclose their opportunity to speak to or make a decision that affects their rights seems to me … would be a miscarriage of justice," the judge said. He said there's hypersensitivity around the collision and what the Broncos families have experienced. The crash stands as a tragedy for the entire province, he added. Court heard there are 11 lawsuits in Saskatchewan and Alberta that involve the crash. Carol and Lyle Brons are listed as representative plaintiffs in the class action, which also names the Saskatchewan government. The couple's 24-year-old daughter, Dayna Brons of Lake Lenore, Sask., was the team's athletic therapist and was killed. The website of Vancouver-based law firm Rice Harbut Elliott LLP says potential members in the class action could also include survivors of the crash, families who billeted hockey players and first responders. Its lawyers told court on Nov. 4 that a decision about whether the provincial government is struck from the one lawsuit affects other legal actions. They suggested the issue be heard as part of the class action's certification process. Regina lawyer Kevin Mellor represents those involved in the lawsuit that was the subject of the Nov. 4 hearing. They are the families of Adam Herold, 16, of Monmartre; Jaxon Joseph, 20, of St. Albert, Alta.; Logan Hunter, 18, also of St. Albert; Jacob Leicht, 19, of Humboldt; and Mark Cross, 27, from Strasbourg. They do not want to be part of the class action and have been waiting two years for their matter to be heard, Mellor said. Some of the other lawsuits were filed much later, he added. "Justice delayed is justice denied," he said outside court. "My clients are anxious to get this part of their life behind them." Mellor said his clients believe the government is responsible for not making sure there were proper sightlines at the rural intersection north of Tisdale, where the crash happened. In a statement, Saskatchewan's Ministry of Highways said a safety review was done following the crash and workers installed rumble strips last fall. Spokesman Doug Wakabayashi said power lines are to be relocated and trees removed next year. [GN] CANADA: Settlement in Suit Against Ex-B.C. Social Worker OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- Shelby Thom. writing for Global News, reports that a multi-million dollar settlement for the victims of a predatory former social worker in Kelowna, B.C., has been reached with the B.C. government and approved by a judge. The settlement against Robert (Riley) Saunders was approved by Justice Alan Ross of the Supreme Court of B.C. on Oct. 23. Saunders neglected children in the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development assigned to his guardianship, the victims' lawyer, Jason Gratl, writes on his website. The social worker is accused of defrauding children in ministry care of their food, clothing and shelter allowances, leaving many of his victims destitute and homeless, Gratl said. "Most of the children for whom Saunders was acting as guardian were Indigenous children, and their cultural and spiritual development was ignored and neglected," he said. Saunders is alleged to have stolen money from 2001 until his firing in 2018. The class was certified under the class proceedings act on July 28, 2020. Court documents listed the number of class-action members at 107, though two have died while another four have opted out. The documents also said of the 107 estimated class-action members, 90 are estimated to be Indigenous or of Indigenous ancestry. The terms of the settlement provide payments of $25,000 to all class members and an additional $44,000 for Indigenous children. In addition to the basic payments, victims can apply for elevated damages for increased harms, such as homelessness ($25,000), psychological harm ($45,000), sexual exploitation ($75,000), educational delay ($20,000-$50,000), and bodily harm ($15,000). All-encompassing, victims could receive a maximum of $250,000 as part of the settlement. The ministry was named as a defendant, Gratl said, because it failed to properly supervise Saunders, did not implement policies or safeguards to detect his wrongdoing and failed to notify the victims once the fraud was detected. Gratl says the class-action settlement does not require Saunders to pay anything personally, however the agreement allows the province the option to pursue Saunders to recover the paid-out funds. The settlement agreement does not restrict Saunders from any prosecution under the Criminal Code, and the BC Prosecution Service is still assessing whether charges will be laid. Saunders allegedly opened joint bank accounts with children and youth in ministry care and then transferred the money into his own bank account. "The province admits that Saunders harmed children in the director's care for whom he has responsibility in his capacity as a social worker and that the province is vicariously liable for the harm caused by Saunders," reads part of the settlement agreement between the province and Saunder's victims. "This harm includes neglect, misappropriation of funds and failure to plan for the children's welfare, and, with respect to Indigenous children, failure to take steps to preserve their cultural identities." The deadline for applying for damages is Oct. 23, 2022. Saunders' whereabouts are unknown. He has not responded to any of the lawsuits filed against him. [GN] CANADA: Veterans Affairs Canada Faces Class Action Over Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Halef, writing for Halifax Today.ca, reports that Veterans Affairs Canada is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit for failing to inform former armed forces members about their federal benefits. Veterans advocate Sean Bruyeau said he recently submitted a statement of claim regarding the Supplementary Retirement Benefit. He said he had been eligible to receive the benefit but had not been properly advised by Veterans Affairs Canada. Bruyeau believes the organization isn't doing enough to inform veterans of their benefits, which are often complicated. "We often hear that derogatory comparison between Veterans Affairs and insurance companies, but the truth is Veterans Affairs should behave like an insurance company in terms of the legal obligation to inform their clients," he said. "There are no consequences, no legal obligation whatsoever for Veterans Affairs to inform their clients to the benefits in which they're entitled." Bruyeau says the goal with this proposed class action lawsuit is to have those eligible receive the benefits they were never informed of, and by extension, have the court rule Veterans Affairs Canada is legally obligated to inform former service members of their benefits. [GN] CARDONE EQUITY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Dec. 20 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Cardone Equity Fund investors pursuant to Cardone's public offerings. Investors have until December 20, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case. It is alleged in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, Cardone made materially misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose material fact regarding investors' expected rates of return on their investment, among other things. The lawsuit seeks an award of rescission or rescissory damages and prejudgment interest under the federal securities laws, among other things. 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 20, 2020. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] CARNIVAL CORP: McGuireWoods Discuss Ruling in Archer Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kamran Ahmadian, Esq. -- kahmadian@mcguirewoods.com -- Diane Flannery, Esq. -- dflannery@mcguirewoods.com -- Andrew Gann Jr. -- agann@mcguirewoods.com -- Esq., and Bethany Gayle Lukitsch, Esq. -- blukitsch@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for JDSupra, relate that on October 20, 2020, Judge Klausner issued his order in Archer, et al. v. Carnival Corporation. No. 2:20-cv-04203, Doc. 92 ("Order"). This Order is the first of its kind related to COVID-19 and the cruise industry. The cruise industry was the initial focal point for significant class action litigation arising out of COVID-19. In this Order, Judge Klausner provided the cruise industry with some reprieve as it related to Robert Archer's attempt to represent a class. The Order held that the class-action waiver found in Mr. Archer's Passage Contract was valid and enforceable. Specifically, the Order applied the "two-pronged reasonable communicativeness test" to determine under "federal common law and maritime law" whether the passengers were contractually bound by the class action waiver included in their Carnival cruise ticket. The first prong of the reasonable communicative test analyzes the "physical characteristics of the ticket," including "size of type, conspicuousness and clarity of notice on the face of the ticket, and the ease with which a passenger can read the provisions in question." Upon review, the Court determined the "Passage Contract [was] sufficiently conspicuous . . . [and] available to passengers in several ways": First, the Booking Confirmation PDF linked to the Passage Contract. Second, if a passenger opened the Cruise Personalizer, the Passage Contract would show up in a dialog box. Finally, the Passage Contract was also available on Princess Cruises' website. Once a passenger opens the Passage Contract, the first paragraph warns passengers ‘IMPORTANT NOTICE TO GUEST' and encourages the passenger that it is important for them to read Section 15, which limits the passenger's right to sue. The title of Section 15 clearly states that in all-caps it includes a class-action waiver. Subsection C states, ‘WAIVER OF CLASS ACTION' and unambiguously indicates that the passenger is waiving her right to pursue a class or collective action against Princess Cruises." Under the second prong, the Court evaluated certain extrinsic factors related to the passenger's ticket purchase - i.e., "[P]assenger's familiarity with the ticket, the time and incentive under circumstances to study the provisions of the ticket, and any other notice that the passenger received outside of the ticket." Again, the Court determined that passengers had sufficient opportunity to review the Passage Contract's terms: Princess Cruises sent the Booking Confirmation Email and the Booking Confirmation PDF—each of which linked to the Passage Contract—to Plaintiffs upon booking. Passengers were also required to affirmatively select that they had read and accepted the passage contract. At any point, the passenger could print out the contract and peruse its terms. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Defendants took away their opportunity to review the contract before, during, or after the cruise. In addition to the two prongs of the reasonableness communicativeness test, the Order also discussed three additional points favoring preservation of class-action waivers. First, the Court held that the Passenger Contract satisfied any scrutiny for fundamental fairness because "Plaintiffs [did] not provide any evidence of bad-faith motive, fraud, overreaching, or that the waiver discourages passengers from pursuing legitimate claims." Second, the Court held that "[c]lass-actions waivers in the cruise ship context are not unconscionable." Third, and finally, the Court held that the "class-action waiver is not void as a matter of public policy." In the end, Archer serves as a reminder of the import of class-actions waivers. As we stated in our prior article, we believe it is important to consider whether to employ a class-action waiver divorced from an arbitration agreement: By employing a class action waiver, a corporate defendant can prevent a class action without the risk of mass arbitration filings that often require the defendant to pay a significant sum in filing fees. If mass filings do occur in either state or federal courts, the corporate defendant can take advantage of various consolidation methods for streamlined discovery and will not be on the hook for the filing fees of these cases at the outset." Ultimately, Archer confirms this consideration and lends further credence to the fact that a class-action waiver, in and of itself, is a powerful tool that should be considered and thoughtfully implemented. [GN] CELSION CORP: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ: CLSN), Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C), and Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ: CLSN) Class Period: November 2, 2015 to July 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020 Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug company that focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Celsion's lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a heat-activated liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical development for treating primary liver cancer. In February 2014, Celsion announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had reviewed and provided clearance for the Company's planned pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation ("RFA") in primary liver cancer, also known as hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC"), called the "OPTIMA Study." The trial design was purportedly based on a comprehensive analysis of data from the Company's Phase III HEAT Study, which purportedly demonstrated that treatment with ThermoDox resulted in a 55% improvement in overall survival ("OS") in a substantial number of HCC patients that received an optimized RFA treatment. On July 13, 2020, Celsion announced that "it ha[d] received a recommendation from the independent [DMC] to consider stopping the global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox® in combination with [RFA] for the treatment of [HCC], or primary liver cancer." According to the Company, "[t]he recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020," which "found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903." On this news, Celsion's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or 63.97%, to close at $1.29 per share on July 13, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 29, 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) defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of ThermoDox; (ii) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Celsion class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CLSN 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] CIGNA HEALTH: California Court Stays Santiago Suit Through Feb. 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California stayed through Feb. 16, 2021, the case styled JONATHAN SANTIAGO, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-01413-NONE-SKO (E.D. Cal.). On Aug. 19, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his Class Action Complaint against the Defendant in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Tulare. The Defendant filed its Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court on the ground of original jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") on Oct. 2, 2020. The Defendant filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration, Strike the Class Claims, and Stay Action on Oct. 23, 2020. The Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration is fully briefed but the Court has not yet ruled on Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On Oct. 30, 2020, the Plaintiff filed his Motion to Remand based on his allegations that the Defendant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy meets the CAFA threshold. His Motion to Remand is fully briefed but the Court has yet not ruled on it. The Initial Scheduling Conference for the Action is set for Dec. 17, 2020. In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b) and 26(f), the counsel for the Parties met and conferred on Nov. 25, 2020. The Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report is due on Dec. 9, 2020. They agreed to provide their Initial Disclosures on Dec. 23, 2020. The Parties are in the process of discussing settlement including participating in private mediation. In order to prevent them from incurring further, potentially unnecessary litigation expenses which could jeopardize settlement prospects, the Parties agree that the interests of judicial economy and the interests of preserving judicial and party resources favor a temporary stay of the Action, including the ruling of Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, and the deadlines associated with the Initial Scheduling Conference, until Feb. 16, 2021, while they continue their settlement efforts. No party to the Action will be prejudiced by the temporary stay. The Parties, therefore, stipulated and agreed that (i) the entire Action is stayed through Feb. 16, 2021; (ii) no Order will issue regarding the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration until at least Feb. 16, 2021; (iii) no Order will issue regarding the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand until at least Feb. 16, 2021; (iv) the Initial Scheduling Conference, which is currently set for Dec. 17, 2020, is continued until Feb. 25, 2021 and the time to file the Joint Rule 26(f) Report is extended to Feb. 18, 2021, or to a date thereafter that is most convenient for the Court; and (v) they will serve their Initial Disclosures by Feb. 18, 2021. Having reviewed the Parties' stipulation, and for good cause shown, Magistrate Judge Oberto granted the Parties' request and ordered that (i) the case is stayed through Feb. 16, 2021; (ii) no order will issue regarding the Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration until at least Feb. 16, 2021; (iii) no order will issue regarding the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand until at least Feb. 16, 2021; (iv) the Parties will serve their Initial Disclosures by Feb. 18, 2021; and (v) the Initial Scheduling Conference currently set for Dec. 17, 2020, is continued to March 2, 2021, at 9:30 a.m. The parties will file their joint scheduling report no later than seven days before the conference. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4vwnaum from Leagle.com. Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@calljustice.com -- LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC, in Glendale, California. Heather Davis -- heather@protectionlawgroup.com -- PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP, in El Segundo, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Carlos Jimenez -- cajimenez@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., in Los Angeles, California. Linda Nguyen Bollinger -- lbollinger@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., San Jose, California, Attorneys for Defendant. CITIGROUP INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issues reminder to holders of Citigroup Inc. securities: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Citigroup Inc. ("Citi") (NYSE: C) between February 25, 2017 and October 12, 2020. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/citigroup-inc-information-request-form?prid=10686&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. According to the filed complaint, throughout the class period, defendants willfully or recklessly made and/or caused the Company to make false and misleading statements regarding Citi's internal controls and risk management capabilities that failed to disclose the serious and longstanding inadequacy of Citi's internal controls, data governance, compliance risk management, and enterprise risk management. As a result, Defendants' statements about Citi's internal controls and risk management were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in Citi you have until December 29, 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. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Haye's Class Certification Bid Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Douglas I. Haye, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS, INC., a corporation,, Case No. 1:20-cv-00153-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Nancy D. Freudenthal entered an order granting the joint Motion for Interim Stay of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. The Court said, "The Defendant's obligation to respond to Plaintiff's December 1, 2020 Motion for Class Certification is hereby stayed while the Court determines the outcome of the Defendant's pending November 24, 2020, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Upon entry by the Court of a final determination on the Defendant's November 24, 2020, Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, if applicable, the Defendant shall have 14 calendar days to file and serve its response to the Plaintiff's December 1, 2020 Motion for Class Certification." A copy of Court's order staying the plaintiff's motion for class certification dated Dec. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/348sT53 at no extra charge.[CC] COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Columbia Sportswear Company ("Columbia Sportswear" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: COLM) investors concerning the Company's possible violations of the federal securities laws. Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a National Class Action Law Firm, Continues Investigation of Columbia Sportswear Company (COLM) on Behalf of Investors If you suffered a loss on your Columbia Sportswear 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/columbia-sportswear-company/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On October 29, 2020, Columbia Sportswear announced its third quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company stated that net sales declined 23% year-over-year partly due to "approximately $45 million of Fall 2020 shipments shifting into fourth quarter 2020." On this news, the Company's share price fell $21.68, or 23%, to close at $74.59 per share on October 30, 2020. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Columbia Sportswear should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] COOK COUNTY, IL: Class Certification Denial in McFields Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, COURTNEY McFIELDS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THOMAS J. DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1391 (7th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiff McFields, once a detainee at Illinois' Cook County Jail, brought a putative class action against Cook County and its sheriff for allegedly depriving McFields and other detainees of adequate dental care. Defendants Cook County and its sheriff operate Cook County Jail and are charged with providing medical and dental care to pretrial detainees housed there. The district court construed the word "detainees" in the complaint to mean "pretrial detainees" because the Cook County Jail houses primarily people who have not yet been convicted. The difference matters because the standard of proof is different for medical claims asserted by pretrial detainees and those brought by persons already convicted. Under the jail's so-called "paper triage" policy, a detainee who has dental pain and wants treatment must submit a health service request form ("HSRF"), various versions of which existed between 2011 and 2018. Once submitted, staff review the HSRF and categorize it as "routine," "priority," or "urgent," and the detainee is then referred to a dentist for treatment in anywhere from three to thirty days (depending on the categorization). Importantly, however, most detainees do not receive a face-to-face assessment from a nurse or higher-level practitioner before they ultimately receive care from a dentist, according to the complaint. A face-to-face assessment would include an oral health screening, which could identify bona fide complaints of dental pain or reveal serious medical issues and would allow a nurse to dispense over-the-counter pain medication. Plaintiff McFields complains about that last aspect of the policy--the failure to provide all detainees who complain of dental pain with face-to-face assessments. McFields was held in the Cook County Jail from September 10 to Dec. 18, 2014. On Oct. 13, 2017, McFields and the other Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the Defendants alleging that they suffered gratuitous pain as a result of the jail's paper triage policy. They alleged that the standard of care for processing a health service request requires a face-to-face assessment within 48 hours and that the jail's policy deviating from that standard is objectively unreasonable in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In April 2018, the district court denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case as untimely. It held that the previous class action Smentek v. Sheriff of Cook County, No. 09-cv-529 (N.D. Ill.), tolled the two-year statute of limitations for the Plaintiffs' claims. In November 2018, McFields and the other Plaintiffs moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) to certify a class of "all persons who, while detained at the Cook County Jail between Nov. 1, 2013 and April 30, 2018, submitted a written 'Health Service Request Form' complaining of dental pain and did not receive a face-to-face assessment by a registered nurse or higher-level practitioner after submitting the request." The district court denied the motion for class certification after concluding that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality, typicality, and predominance requirements of Rule 23. The district court considered the nature of the Plaintiffs' claims and concluded that, to succeed, they would ultimately need to prove that the paper triage policy was "objectively unreasonable," which necessitates an individualized inquiry. With that in mind, the district court then determined that commonality was not satisfied because the existence of a policy that failed to provide face-to-face assessments--the only common question presented--was not dispositive of the Plaintiffs' claims, or even particularly helpful in the required analysis. The district court also ruled that typicality was not satisfied because "no case is typical"; each Plaintiff presents a different situation, involving different dental issues, different degrees of pain, different delays, different treatments. Finally, predominance was not satisfied because individual issues--the facts and circumstances of each individual detainee's claim--predominate over common questions of law or fact. Afterwards, the other Plaintiffs accepted unconditional offers of judgment and did not reserve the right to appeal. McFields also accepted an offer of judgment but did reserve his right to appeal. He then filed the appeal. The Seventh Circuit focuses on Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements and Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, as those were the grounds for the district court's decision. McFields argues that the questions common to the proposed class include (1) whether there was a widespread practice of failing to provide face-to-face assessments and, if so, (2) whether that policy exposed detainees to a substantial risk of harm in violation of the Constitution. The Appellate Court finds the argument to be without merit. It holds that the claims of every class member will not rise or fall on the resolution of whether the paper triage policy existed, and whether the policy was objectively unreasonable requires an individualized, plaintiff-specific assessment. The Appellate Court, therefore, concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that McFields fails to satisfy commonality. The Appellate Court agrees with the district court that McFields has not affirmatively demonstrated his compliance with the typicality requirement. Though a separate inquiry from the commonality question, the conclusion flows from the same basic defects described. McFields asserts that his claim is based on the same "course of conduct" that affected all members of the class; but that does not mean that his claim has the same essential characteristics as the claims of the class at large, which is what the requirement is meant to ensure. The Appellate Court, therefore, sees no abuse of discretion in the district court's conclusion that evaluating the Plaintiff's claims requires a 'highly individualized inquiry'; each Plaintiff's case is different and, therefore, no case is typical. The district court also concluded that McFields failed to satisfy the predominance requirement because individual issues--the facts and circumstances of each individual detainee's claim--predominate. The Appellate Court sees no real need to analyze the issue given its conclusions that McFields failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and (3). After all, Rule 23(b)(3) is "far more demanding" than the commonality requirement that he already failed to meet. It has no need to address the Defendants' alternative argument that McFields is an inadequate class representative because his claim is untimely. For these reasons, the Seventh Circuit concludes that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying class certification. The Appellate Court, therefore, affirmed the district court's ruling. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3p5u7yh from Leagle.com. DEENORA CORP: Panora OK'd to Send Out Modified Collective Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSE PANORA, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DEENORA CORP d/b/a Dees et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-7267 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to send out notice of a collective action. The Plaintiff brings the case under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), alleging that the Defendants failed to pay him proper overtime wages. Dee's Brick Oven Pizza employs 11 or more people at any given time, including waiters, bartenders, bussers, and kitchen staff. The Plaintiff worked as a chef at Dee's from some time in 2013 to July 13, 2019, and was paid a flat salary on a weekly basis. From 2013 to April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff was paid $1,310 per week. During this time period, he generally worked six days a week, ranging from 10.5 hours to 11.5 hours a day, for a total of 65 hours per week. From April 10, 2018 (at the latest) until the end of his employment on July 13, 2019, he was paid $1,340 per week. During this time period, he generally worked five days a week for a total of 55.5 hours a week, but approximately once a month he worked an additional one day a week for a total of 65 hours that week. The Plaintiff was not paid overtime despite regularly working over forty hours a week. The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff was an overtime exempt executive. They moved for summary judgment on the Plaintiff's claims on that basis and moved to dismiss their state law minimum wage claim. Judge Cogan denied summary judgment on the issue of exemption because there were material disputes of fact as to the Plaintiff's role at the restaurant but granted dismissal of the state law minimum wage claim. The Plaintiff seeks authorization to send out the collective action to his coworkers. In his affidavit, the Plaintiff provides information regarding 19 coworkers, including their position, work period, workdays per week, work hours per week, and pay if known. Some of these employees were paid a weekly salary and some hourly, but all are alleged to have suffered from a practice and policy of defendants to not pay overtime. The Plaintiff's information comes from his observations of his coworkers' schedules, as he asserts that the majority of kitchen employees worked the same schedule as him, and conversations with them about their pay. As the basis for his knowledge of pay and the lack of overtime, the Plaintiff describes conversations with other kitchen employees while working on the kitchen line and the approximate timing of these conversations, in which he and his coworkers discussed their pay, complained about the lack of overtime, and wondered whether they might make more money and be paid overtime in a position elsewhere. Judge Cogan finds that the Plaintiff's affidavit sufficiently establishes, for the purposes of the motion, that he and several other employees were not paid overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' restaurant for over 20 years and developed personal relationships with many of his coworkers. The Plaintiff has explained in sufficient detail his observations and the time, place, and context of his conversations to support his affidavit's assertions. The Plaintiff has, thus, satisfied the requisite modest showing that he is similarly situated to the potential opt-in Plaintiffs as to the FLSA overtime claim. To aid in providing notice to all the potential members of the putative FLSA collective, the Plaintiff requests that the Defendants produce: a Microsoft Excel data file containing contact information (including but not limited to last known mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses, last known WhatsApp, WeChat and/or Facebook usernames, work location, dates of employment, and position) for all non-managerial employees who worked for the Defendants from Dec. 29, 2016 to the present day. The Defendants do not object to production of this information and are ordered to do so within 14 days of entry of the Order, a reasonable time period for the case. They object to the Plaintiff's proposed Court Authorized Notice and distribution plan as overbroad. First, the Defendants note that the Plaintiff's minimum wage claim has been dismissed, and thus argue that the notice should not mention any federal minimum wage claim. The Judge agreed. The Plaintiff must remove any reference to minimum wages from the Notice. Second, the Defendants object to the Plaintiff's failure to include contact information for defense counsel in the Notice. The Plaintiff objects to inclusion of the defense counsel's contact information, but inclusion of such information is routine. The Judge agrees that defense counsel's contact information should be provided in the Notice. Third, the Defendants object to the inclusion of the case caption on the Notice. The case caption merely provides basic information about the case and is appropriately included on the Notice. Fourth, the Defendants claim that the Plaintiff fails to include language explaining that the Court has not determined who is right or who is wrong and does not make any suggestion as to whether a collective member should or should not join the case. The Judge holds that the language is sufficient. Fifth, the Defendants claim that there is no language advising the opt-in Plaintiffs that they have the freedom to choose their own counsel. But the Notice clearly states so. Sixth, the Defendants argue that the Notice should discuss the potential costs and discovery obligations that come with being a party to litigation. The Judge finds that the Notice should include this information. However, an explanation of potential costs or counterclaims against the Plaintiffs is not required. For distribution, the Plaintiff thus may use forms of direct communication with the potential Plaintiffs--including mail, e-mail, text message, and direct social media channels such as WhatsApp and WeChat--in addition to posting on the Plaintiff's counsel's website and at the Defendant restaurant. As to the opt-in period, the COVID-19 public health crisis is a special circumstance, and its increasing severity in New York City makes it likely that restrictive shutdown orders may be imposed during the opt-in period. A 90-day opt-in period is thus appropriate in the case. The Defendants also object to the notice period being measured from the filing of the complaint rather than the date of the Court's order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiff has not presented any reason to deviate from that general rule. Thus, the notice will be measured from the date of issuance of the order. The Defendants do not substantively object to the Plaintiff's remaining procedural requests--that the Notice may be disseminated in any relevant language and that the Notice should provide for a 3-year statute of limitations in light of the complaint's allegations of willfulness. The Judge finds them reasonable and approved them. Based on the foregoing, Judge Cogan granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for leave to send out notice of a collective action is granted in part. The Plaintiff's counsel will modify the notice and consent form in accordance with the Order and will electronically file the revised forms within 14 days. The Defendants will produce the requested employee information for potential class members to the Plaintiff's counsel by the same date. The Plaintiff's counsel will mail the revised notice to all the potential Plaintiffs no later than 14 days following the Defendants' disclosure of the contact information. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Memorandum Decision & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y5geouyu from Leagle.com. DESJARDINS FIN'L: Asselin Class Action Can Proceed, Court Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Bronskill at The Canadian Press reports that a class-action suit over personal investments can proceed against a Montreal-based financial services firm, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled. Between 2005 and 2007, Ronald Asselin purchased principal-protected term deposits from a Desjardins Group caisse populaire that were not redeemable before maturity. In March 2009, shortly after the major financial crisis that struck the global economy, Asselin was told the investments would not yield any return and would still continue to be uncashable until the end of their terms. In 2011, Asselin filed an application to pursue a class action against Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc., alleging it had failed to adequately inform him and other customers of the risk involved with the investments. He also included Desjardins Global Asset Management Inc. in the action on the basis it purportedly made risky transactions that exposed the investments to market fluctuations. A judge dismissed Asselin's application for the class action, but the decision was overturned by Quebec's Court of Appeal, prompting Desjardins to take its case to the Supreme Court. In its decision, a majority of the Supreme Court said the Court of Appeal was correct to authorize the class action, though the top court also clarified the scope of the claim for punitive damages. "As we know, the threshold for authorizing a class action in Quebec is a low one," Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote on behalf of the majority. Once the relevant conditions set out in the province's Code of Civil Procedure are met, the judge mustauthorize the action and "has no residual discretion to deny authorization on the pretext that a class action is not the most appropriate vehicle," he wrote. The burden of establishing an arguable case in light of the facts and the applicable law is met in this case, Kasirer said. "Mr. Asselin's proposed cause of action is neither frivolous nor clearly unfounded." [GN] ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Class Action in Canada "Loot Box" Payments ----------------------------------------------------------------- MarketScreener reports that on September 30, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia seeking reimbursement of "loot box" payments (the "Claim") made by class members to Electronic Arts Inc. and Electronic Arts (Canada) Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). While it was filed in British Columbia, the Claim is national in scope. The Claim was brought on behalf of joint plaintiffs (a British Columbia resident and an Ontario Resident), as well as all other Canadians who purchased loot boxes in any of over 60 of the Defendants' video game titles, between 2008 and 2020. A "loot box" is defined in the Claim as a consumable virtual item that can be redeemed to receive a randomized selection of further virtual items. In the modern videogame industry, the items granted by loot boxes range from simple cosmetic options for a player's in-game avatar, to game-changing items that alter how the game is played (potentially giving players an edge in competition with other players).2 The Claim states that the random chance aspects of loot boxes are central to their appeal to developers and publishers, and that loot boxes are considered part of the "compulsion loop" of game design, used to keep players invested in games.3 The Claim asserts that loot boxes function similar to slot machines doling out prizes, and that the items in loot boxes have intrinsic value as they can often be purchased directly with real money, or sold/traded in-game. The Claim states that loot boxes are a form of unlawful gambling under the Criminal Code of Canada, and the Defendants have breached gambling laws in Canada by selling loot boxes.4 Further, the Claim asserts that the Defendants and their executives were at all times fully aware of the unlawful nature of loot boxes and took active steps to sell them regardless, or alternatively, were reckless or willfully blind to the unlawful nature of loot boxes. The legal basis for the Claim is the Defendants' unjust enrichment from profits obtained by selling Loot Boxes, which constitutes an alleged scheme for advancing games of chance, betting, or similar behaviours, or a lottery scheme contrary to the Criminal Code.5 Additionally, the Claim states that the Defendants breached the provincial Gaming Control Act, because offering loot boxes to the public constitutes "gaming services" and the Defendants are therefore unlicensed "gaming services providers."6 Some older Canadian laws refer to gambling as "gaming", with the obvious possibility of confusion when discussing the video game industry. The Claim also alleges that the Defendants have breached the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act ("BCPA")7 and the OntarioConsumer Protection Act ("OCPA")8 by: -- concealing the odds of loot boxes in affected titles; failing to have safeguards in place to prevent minors from consuming loot boxes; and -- making high-value items that affect gameplay available exclusively from loot boxes, thereby forcing players to obtain loot boxes. The Claim asserts that the Defendants breached the BCPA and OCPA by taking advantage of consumers' inability to understand the nature of loot boxes, or alternatively the terms and conditions within the Defendants' video games were too adverse to consumers to be equitable. The Claim also states that the Defendants breached the Competition Act, by offering loot boxes for sale, advertising an internet gaming site, failing to disclose loot box odds, failing to promote responsible gaming and failing to protect minors as required by advertising regulations.9 Finally, the Claim identifies that the Defendants collected money from players who are under the age of legal majority ("infants") and therefore are entitled to compensation under the Infants Act. The Claimants have thrown a wide variety of legal claims at the Defendants in the apparent hope that the BC Supreme court will agree that at least one of the allegations will apply. Loot Boxes in Other Jurisdictions Loot boxes are utilized by numerous developers and publishers, and are prevalent in many of the most popular video games in the world. However, most jurisdictions have not imposed regulations on loot boxes, or issued binding determinations of their legality within existing regulatory frameworks for gambling and consumer protection. In May 2019, an American Senator introduced a bill to federally regulate the sale of loot boxes in the United States, but no such regulation has yet been passed.11 Some individual states have taken action with regards to the sale of loot boxes, for example: Washington State has indicated that it is investigating loot boxes, and Minnesota has introduced a law prohibiting the sale of games that offer loot boxes for real money to anyone under the age of 18.12 Perhaps coincidentally, a class action lawsuit against Electronic Arts Inc. very similar to one discussed herein, was filed on August 13, 2020 in California. This lawsuit alleges that Electronic Arts "relies on creating addictive behaviors in consumers to generate huge revenues" and singles out loot boxes in the Defendants' FIFA and Madden NFL game series as being "predatory and designed to entice gamers to gamble."13 California courts may well be the first American tribunals to issue binding rulings on the legality of loot boxes under general anti-gambling or consumer protection laws. Most European countries have yet to take a stance on loot boxes, with a few notable exceptions. In Belgium, it has been determined that some loot boxes violate existing gambling laws (although no loot box-specific regulations have been passed).14 While in France, a gambling regulating body determined that loot boxes were not legally a form of gambling.15 In mid-October of this year, the Court of The Hague in the Netherlands authorized the Netherlands Gambling Authority ("KSA") to enforce a fine of up to €5m against Electronic Arts Inc. for violating the Netherlands Gambling Act through its use of loot boxes in FIFA.16 KSA has declared loot boxes illegal "games of chance" which, under Dutch law can only be provided to the public if a relevant licence has been granted. This is one of the first outright declarations that loot boxes are illegal, and Electronic Arts Inc. has already indicated that it plans to appeal this ruling.17 While the discussion on loot box legality appears to be heating up, in some jurisdictions the focus lately has been on informing consumers about loot boxes, rather than banning them outright. For example in China and South Korea, developers selling loot boxes in their games must disclose the probability of receiving any given reward.18 Voluntary industry self-regulation has also taken steps in this direction, with both the Entertainment Software Rating Board ("ESRB") and Pan European Game Information ("PEGI") introducing new labelling requirements for videogames containing loot boxes. We covered this loot box disclosure issue in an article published earlier this year titled "Loot Boxes May Still Be Random, but Games that Offer Loot Boxes Will Be Clearly Labelled." The Future of Loot Boxes in Canada Traditional legal frameworks have trouble accommodating loot boxes. The Claim against the Defendants marks one of the first times that loot boxes have been placed under the scrutiny of a Canadian court, and may provide stakeholders in the videogame industry with much-needed guidance on the legality of these types of video game mechanics. Both developers and publishers should pay close attention to this lawsuit. Depending on the Claimants' success, this Claim is a potential springboard for similar loot box-related lawsuits both in Canada and abroad. In the absence of industry-specific regulations that clearly define legal and illegal practices, class actions like this one may end up shaping how videogame publishers and developers do business in Canada for many years to come. [GN] ELI LILLY: Continues to Fight Price-Gouging Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Dan Neumann, writing for Maine Beacon, reports that a new analysis of the possible correlation between drug manufacturers' political giving and policy outcomes shows that Sen. Susan Collins has taken nearly half a million dollars from Big Pharma during her career and cast key votes that have benefited the interests of one of the nation's top corporate lobbies. The report, released on Oct. 29 by Lower Drug Prices Now, shows that Collins' campaign accounts have received $22,000 directly from the drug industry so far this year, and $478,000 from drug industry corporations, political action committees and individuals since her election to the Senate in 1996. The report also notes that Collins received a campaign donation in 2007 from the former vice president of Purdue Pharma, Jonathan Sackler. Purdue Pharma is the manufacturer of OxyContin. Earlier this year, Collins denied that she took the contribution when confronted by a constituent. Collins' Democratic challenger, Maine House Speaker Sara Gideon, has also accepted money from drug companies to her state-level leadership PAC. Gideon has pledged to refuse money from pharmaceutical PACs for her Senate campaign. Analysis of key votes During debates, Collins has made lowering prescription drug costs a core plank of her health care platform. A $500,000 advertising campaign by One Nation, a PAC run by conservative operative and top advisor to former President George W. Bush Karl Rove, argues that as a founder of the Senate's Diabetes Caucus Collins has made efforts to lower insulin costs. However, the report asserts that the pharmaceutical industry's political spending, which averages $233 million each year on lobbying, has influenced Susan Collins' votes in Congress. "Lots of politicians take Pharma money directly or indirectly -- the real question is whether they then vote for policies that benefit those donors, or prioritize their constituents instead," Margarida Jorge, campaign director of Lower Drug Prices Now, said in a statement. "Senator Collins has voted against key reforms that would actually make medicines more affordable for people in Maine and across the country, including negotiations in Medicare Part D, which would lower costs for seniors and people with disabilities who tend to take more medicines than other groups." Jorge was referencing a vote Collins took in favor of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) in 2003, when her party held majorities in both the House and Senate under Bush. The legislation created the voluntary Part D prescription drug benefit in Medicare and includes a key "noninterference" clause that prohibits the government from negotiating or setting drug prices, the report explains. Health care advocates have been pushing federal lawmakers to change the law to allow Medicare, the nation's biggest coverage provider, to leverage its purchasing power to bargain down drug prices. The "noninterference" clause continues to protect the ability of drug manufacturers to set prices for medicine. Another position the report references is Collins' support for the confirmation of Eli Lilly CEO Alex Azar as U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services in 2018. Eli Lilly is the largest domestic producer of insulin, and is currently fighting a class-action lawsuit for price-gouging. The report notes that during Azar's tenure at Eli Lilly, the company raised the price of its popular insulin product, Humalog, by over 300 percent. Lower Drug Prices Now also points out that former Maine lawmaker Josh Tardy is Collins' re-election committee co-chair and currently a registered lobbyist for Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly paid nothing in federal taxes in 2018 and 2019, after passage of President Donald Trump's 2017 $1.5 trillion tax overall, which dramatically lowered taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Collins cast a decisive vote for the tax bill. The tax overhaul also repealed a key provision of the Affordable Care Act, leading to a pending Supreme Court case to overturn the Obama-era health care law. Taking aim at the Affordable Care Act The report argues that her support for the tax bill was just one vote among several taken by Collins against the ACA, despite the fact that the senator often says that she "saved" Obamacare with her July 2017 vote in favor of preserving the law. In 2010, Collins voted against the legislation. In 2011, she voted for an amendment to repeal the ACA. In 2017, Collins voted for a budget resolution bill to fast-track the process of repealing the ACA, before voting against the GOP's American Health Care Act, which would have repealed key provisions of Obamacare. "As COVID continues to batter the economy and the price of prescription drugs continues to rise faster than any other medical good or service the danger of losing the ACA's provisions that provide access and increased affordability becomes more acute," the report reads. [GN] EPIC SYSTEMS: Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Class Action Waivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey McPhaul, Esq. -- jmcphaul@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), validated the use of class action waivers, providing employers with a valuable tool to preserve bilateral employment arbitrations and manage risk. However, employers carefully should weigh the costs and benefits of whether and how to wield this tool. Two recent decisions underscore this point. First, a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Adams v. Postmates, Inc., 2020 WL 5793745 (9th Cir. 2020), serves as a reminder to employers to exercise caution whether they implement class action waivers as part of their arbitration program (or use an arbitration program at all). In Adams, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision requiring Postmates to litigate roughly 5,200 separate arbitrations, rather than as a class action, and pay the associated filing fees (totaling approximately ten million dollars). As Adams demonstrates, though there may be value in preventing a class or collective action, the emerging byproduct of filing scores of individual arbitrations can create significant expense and frustrate the goals the employer sought to achieve in adopting waiver language. As a result, employers should make conscious and sagacious decisions when determining whether to require disputes to be resolved through class or corrective actions or via individual arbitrations. Second, a case the Supreme Court recently declined to review, Sterling Jewelers, Inc. v. Jock, 2020 WL 5882321 (2020), suggests that employers exercise caution how they implement their arbitration programs and class action waivers. Jock was filed in 2008 as a class action. After initial procedural wrangling, and over the objection of Sterling Jewelers, the case was referred to an arbitrator deemed to decide whether the language of the applicable agreement permitted class arbitration. Though silent on class claims, the arbitrator nevertheless found class arbitration was available under the agreement. The arbitrator later ruled that this decision applied not only to the claimants before the arbitrator, but also to other absent class members who had signed the same agreement. Following the Supreme Court's decisions in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019), and Stolt–Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corporation, 559 U.S. 662 (2010), the law now is clear: ambiguity does not allow for class arbitration because "[c]ourts may not infer from an ambiguous agreement that parties have consented to arbitrate on a classwide basis." Lamps Plus, 139 S. Ct. at 1419. Despite this unambiguous case law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the arbitrator's determination and the Supreme Court declined to review it. The takeaway from Jock: employers should be cognizant of who (the court or arbitrator) is tasked with deciding the enforceability of the class action waiver in an arbitration agreement. If this ruling is left to an arbitrator, the employer's ability to appeal an adverse determination may be quite limited. [GN] EVOLUS INC: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 15 Motion 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(TM) 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(TM); (3) as a result, Evolus faced a real threat of regulatory and/or court action, prohibiting the import, marketing, and sale of Jeuveau(TM); (4) which in turn seriously threatened Evolus' ability to commercialize Jeuveau(TM) in the United States and generate revenue; and (5) any revenues generated from the sale of Jeuveau(TM) 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] FIRST AMERICAN: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 24 Bid 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 First American Financial Corporation ("First American" or the "Company") (NYSE:FAF) between February 17, 2017 and October 22, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased First American securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit First American Financial 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/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) the Company failed to implement basic security standards to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and data; (2) the Company 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. On May 24, 2019, KrebsOnSecurity.com ("Krebs") reported a massive data exposure by First American in which approximately 885 million customer files were exposed by First American. On this news, shares of First American fell $3.46 per share, or over 6%, to close at $51.80 on May 25, 2019. Then, on October 22, 2020, First American filed a quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC, announcing that the Company had received a wells notice regarding its massive security breach. On this news the price of First American shares fell approximately $4.83 per share, or 9% to close at $46.75 per share on October 22, 2020. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 24, 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 First American securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/firstamericanfinancialcorporation-faf-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-328/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. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] FIRST AMERICAN: Kahn Swick Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Credit Acceptance Corporation (CACC) Class Period: 11/1/2019 - 8/28/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 1, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-cacc/ 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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-trq/ First American Financial Corp. (FAF) Class Period: 2/17/2017 - 10/22/2020 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: December 24, 2020 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-faf/ 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.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-wfc/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] FIRST AMERICAN: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 24 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of First American Financial Corp shareholders. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. First American Financial Corp. (NYSE:FAF) FAF Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 17, 2017 - October 22, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : December 24, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/first-american-financial-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=10725&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, First American Financial Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company failed to implement basic security standards to protect its customers' sensitive personal information and data; (2) the Company 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. 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] GERBER LIFE: Class Certification Bid in Prewitt Suit Due April 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BEULAH PREWITT, v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE CO., Case No. 6:20-cv-00027-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky.), the Hon. Judge Hanly A. Ingram entered an order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to modify the existing Scheduling Order and extend all existing deadlines by 90 days. The revised scheduling order provides that: -- The parties shall complete all discovery by August 19, 2021. -- Per Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2), no later than April 15, 2021, Plaintiff shall disclose the identity of expert witnesses who may be used at trial, accompanied by written reports signed by the Rule 26(a)(2)(B) expert witnesses and/or written summaries consistent with Rule 26(a)(2)(C), as applicable, all in compliance with the Rule. -- The disclosures need not be filed in the Court record. No later than May 24, 2021, the Defendants shall provide same. -- The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by April 15, 2021. Any response by the Defendant is due by May 27, 2021. Any reply by the Plaintiff is due by June 10, 2021. Any party that desires a hearing on certification shall make this request as part of the briefing. -- No later than September 27, 2021, counsel for the parties shall file all dispositive motions. Responses shall be governed by local rule. Any depositions cited to in a motion or other brief must be filed in their entirety along with the motion or other brief (either as a separate record entry or if feasible as an attachment). A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/34bXkqZ at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of $7BB Incognito Mode Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Garry Lu, writing for Boss Hunting, reports that the general assumption has always been that anything which occurs during Incognito Mode automatically disappears into the oblivion once you exit. But back in June, a group of very motivated lawyers filed a class-action lawsuit against Google for tracking all our Incognito Mode activity and holding onto the data. Cue sweat. The complaint itself was filed to the US District Court (Northern District of California) by a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm. Stating that Google has apparently been in breach of user privacy due to the "unlawful and intentional interception and collection" of Incognito Mode data, the lawsuit is now seeking minimum damages of US$5 billion (AU$7.1 billion). This essentially amounts to US$5,000 (AU$7,120) for anyone who has used Incognito Mode from June 1st of 2016 onwards. Naturally, Google wants this lawsuit dismissed. Most recently, the Alphabet Inc. owned entity made its own filing which maintained that Google Chrome outlines user activities are not automatically invisible during Incognito Mode: "The user's activity during that session may be visible to websites they visit, and any third-party analytics, or ads services the visited websites use," the official filing noted. Those of you familiar with Incognito Mode may recall the landing page states your activity might still be visible to "websites that you visit . . . your employer or school . . . your internet service provider". The class-action lawsuit, however, is also claiming Google "accomplishes its surreptitious tracking" via means outside of Incognito mode alone – Google Analytics, Google Ad Manager, even Google Sign-In for websites. A failure to disclose the aforementioned tracking tools outright within the existing Incognito message -- in addition to the Incognito Mode data storage -- appears to make this a far graver situation. "Through its pervasive data tracking business, Google knows who your friends are, what your hobbies are, what you like to eat, what movies you watch… and even the most intimate and potentially embarrassing things you browse on the internet -- regardless of whether you follow Google's advice to keep your activities 'private'." "Google must be held accountable for the harm it has caused to its users in order to ensure it cannot continue to engage in the covert and unauthorized data collection." Lawsuit aside, it would be naive to assume your personal data is completely safe just because a disclaimer tells you so in this day and age. Read about whether your phone is really listening to you here and ways you can fight back against the likes of old mate Zuckerberg here. [GN] GOOGLE: Suits in Israel to be Decided According to Israeli Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Efrat Neuman, writing for Haaretz, reports that two class action suits filed against Google in Israel will be decided according to Israeli law, rather than California law as the company wanted, a court ruled. The ruling is expected to make it easier for both the plaintiffs, who accuse the company of using their personal information without their consent. At first glance, the ruling was surprising, because back in May 2018, the Supreme Court ruled the opposite in a similar case involving Facebook (known as the Ben-Hamo case). The principle set down in that case, which would seemingly apply to all foreign Internet companies that provide service to users worldwide, was that while Facebook could be sued in Israel, the case would have to be decided according to California law. The Ben-Hamo ruling imposed a significant burden on the plaintiffs: When they first file suit against one of the Internet giants, they must submit a legal opinion – which doesn't come cheap – asserting that California law doesn't grant the same rights to the Israeli plaintiffs, and therefore discriminates against them. Only if they manage to prove that – and it must be proved individually for every suit – will the court overrule the clause in the terms of service agreement that makes all disputes subject to California law. So what made the Google case different? Why did the presiding judge, Esther Stemmer, decide that the suits against Google should be decided according to Israeli law? Not exactly. It turns out that Google's terms of service weren't worded carefully enough. They were less explicit than Facebook's agreement, and could therefore be interpreted as allowing the company to be sued in Israel under Israeli law. Google eventually grasped the problem and revised its terms of service. But Stemmer's ruling -- which the company may well appeal -- asserted that the previous wording allowed the plaintiffs to sue it without meeting the conditions set by the Supreme Court in the Ben-Hamo ruling. The suits accuse Google of giving personal data that it acquired from users via its applications to external app developers. In so doing, they charged, the company was using this data for purposes other than those for which it was given, and without the users' consent. At the time, the terms of service agreement stated, "The courts in some countries will not apply California law to some types of disputes. If you reside in one of those countries, then where California law is excluded from applying, your country's laws will apply to such disputes related to these terms." Otherwise, all disputes will be judged according to California law. Read literally, Stemmer said, what this means is that anywhere California law doesn't apply, the laws of the plaintiffs' country apply. Therefore, a reasonable user reading this agreement would understand that any dispute with the company could be settled according to Israeli law. "Google is trying to read what it wrote differently and is trying to give a forced interpretation," she added. "But the poor wording is Google's responsibility, and certainly not that of the people who contracted with it." The clause stating where and how disputes will be resolved ought to be clear, so that any user would understand they can't settle them according to their own country's laws, Stemmer continued. "That's especially true when there's a standard form contract. If Google intended to state, as per its subjective understanding today, that the rule is a hearing under California law, and only in cases where a country's laws forbid this will the hearing be held under that country's laws, then it should have written as much clearly and explicitly." In its revised agreement, Google does make this clearer. The revised version says California law will apply in any dispute involving the terms of service or the company's services. Google said it is currently studying the decision and considering its next steps. One of the class action suits was filed by attorneys Amit Manor and Lydia Mandelbaum-Falkov, and the other by Guy Sagi, Avishay Cohen and Amit Gold. Google was represented by Ruth Loven and Sagi Schiff of the Yigal Arnon law firm. [GN] HENRY FORD: Class Action Settlement Ruling Prompts Ch.11 Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Mullaney, writing for Senior Housing News, reports that Henry Ford Village, a 1,038-bed nonprofit continuing care retirement community (CCRC), has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The spectre of financial distress has loomed over the senior living industry since Covid-19 began sweeping across the United States last spring, placing providers under enormous operational and financial pressure. Providers that were strained prior to the pandemic have been particularly vulnerable. Henry Ford Village is another case in point, as Covid-19 compounded existing financial challenges and created a "perfect storm" for the CCRC, according to court documents. The CCRC campus is located on the site of Henry Ford's birthplace in Dearborn, Michigan. The community was originally developed by Erickson Retirement Communities in the early 1990s, and was acquired by Henry Ford Village (HFV) in 1998. Des Moines, Iowa-based Life Care Services started operating the CCRC in 2010 and is still the management company. Over the years, a number of challenges beset Henry Ford Village, which led to mounting entrance fee liabilities, according to the Chapter 11 documents. These challenges included increased competition; the 2008 housing crisis and Great Recession; and the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler, which decreased the number of older adults who were able to sell their homes and move to HFV. Henry Ford Village began facing legal actions from parties seeking repayment of their refundable entrance fees. A class action that was filed in 2014 resulted in a settlement agreement that was reached in principle in 2019, under which HFV and other defendants were to pay $800,000. Such was the situation when Covid-19 struck. As the pandemic disrupted the capital markets, HFV was not able to complete a planned refinancing, while Covid-19 also drove up operational costs and hurt occupancy. In early October, HFV received a notice of default on its bond obligations. HFV filed a motion seeking relief from paying the class action settlement, and the court denied that motion on Oct. 22. This decision precipitated the Chapter 11 filing, according to court documents. As of Oct. 28, Henry Ford Village had a total outstanding principal obligation on its bond debt of about $52.3 million. Under bankruptcy protection, the CCRC intends to remain fully operational -- on a pandemic footing -- while undertaking a financial restructuring, which could include finding a strategic or financial acquirer or sponsor. "This financial restructuring will allow us to achieve our goals while continuing to serve our residents with the highest level of service and care, and continuing to provide the resources, support and amenities they have come to enjoy and rely on while keeping COVID-19 safety protocols," Executive Director Bruce Blalock said in a press release. "We are immensely grateful for our employees -- who have worked tirelessly to transform our operations in light of the pandemic -- and we are confident they will continue to engage residents in new, exciting and safe ways throughout this process." [GN] HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Consumers Class Certified in Muse Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUANITA MUSE, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, v. HOLLOWAY CREDIT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02499-CMR (E.D. Pa., Filed June 7, 2019), the Hon. Judge Cynthia M. Rufe entered an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all consumers with a Pennsylvania address to whom the Defendant sent a collection letter of the Plaintiff's Complaint during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this initial action and ending 21 days after the service of the initial complaint filed in this action;" 2. designating the Plaintiff Juanita Muse as Class Representative; 3. authorizing Daniel Zemel and Nicholas Linker of the law firm Zemel Law LLC to serve as Class Counsel for the Class in this action; 4. directing the parties to confer as to Notice, and any proposed Class Action Notice Administration form, and directing the Plaintiff to submit a proposed form of Class notification to the Court for review and approval within 30 days of the Court's Order; and 5. directing the Defendant to produce a Class List for the class to Plaintiff's counsel within 30 days of the Court's Order for use in mailing Notice to the Class. Holloway Credit is a debt collection company located in Montgomery, Alabama, with branch offices in Dothan and Mobile. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3gLqdzh at no extra charge.[CC] HOMELAND SECURITY: Ruiz et al. Drop Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Alejandro RUIZ; Alberto DAL PINO; Richard ROMAY; Sandra HERRERA-MORENO; Angel ZAMBRANO-CANTOR; Aitana CARDOSO; Zhibo ZHANG; Pedro RANGEL-SEGURA; Felipe de Jesus VASQUEZ-OROZCO, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et. al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07407-AB-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Andre Birotte Jr. entered an order withdrawing the Plaintiffs' September 18, 2020 motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs may file a new motion for class certification after they file any amended complaint, Judge Birotte says. The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal executive department responsible for public security, roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qNj0n7 at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Crash Detection Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that Honda Motor Co. asked a California federal judge on Nov. 3 to toss a proposed class action that claims the car company hid defective crash detection systems from customers, saying the plaintiffs fail to state how the defects should have been resolved. [GN] HP INC: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-hp-class-action-lawsuit.html) announced that it filed a class action on behalf of an institutional investor seeking to represent purchasers of HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ) common stock between November 6, 2015 and June 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., No. 20-cv-7835. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased HP common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the HP class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the HP class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the HP class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the HP class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the HP class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the HP class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darryl J. Alvarado of Robbins Geller, at 619/744-2692 or via e-mail at dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-hp-class-action-lawsuit.html. The HP class action lawsuit charges HP and certain of its former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. HP provides personal computers, printers, and related supplies, solutions, and services. HP began operations after spinning off from Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company ("HPE") on or about November 1, 2015. Following the spinoff, HP operated the Printing and Personal Systems businesses, while HPE retained the enterprise technology infrastructure, software, services, and financing businesses. Within HP's Printing segment is the Supplies division, which consists of printing and computing supplies, such as toner, ink cartridges, and related printing supplies. Nearly 80% of HP's operating profit was derived from its Printing business during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants 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, 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. As a result of defendants' false statements and omissions, the price of HP stock was artificially inflated to a high of more than $14 per share during the Class Period. Then on June 21, 2016, HP announced an overhaul to its Printing sales model and revealed that it would reduce its Supplies channel inventory by $450 million, resulting in a corresponding reduction of $450 million in Supplies revenue over the remainder of 2016. Following this announcement, the price of HP stock declined 5.4% to close at $12.61 per share on June 22, 2016. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. [GN] HUUUGE INC: Klein Moynihan Discusses $6.5MM Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that producing gaming applications has proven to be a successful business model that, when done correctly, can grow beyond the games themselves into movies, merchandise and more. However, when corners are cut, lawsuits and regulatory problems can keep a good idea from reaching its commercial potential. Prior to launch, developers should consult with a gaming attorney to understand the legal issues that are involved when entering the mobile app game space. What should developers be aware of when creating mobile app games? Cautionary Tale In September of this year, game developer and publisher, Huuuge, Inc. ("Huuuge"), settled a class action lawsuit for $6.5 million. The Plaintiffs, players of Huuuge's Huuuge Casino, Billionaire Casino and Stars Casino games, had alleged that Huuuge's social casino games constituted unlawful gambling within the meaning of Washington State gambling laws. Huuuge mobile app game players were initially provided free virtual coins to wager on Vegas-style slots. Once they had exhausted their free virtual coins, users were provided with the opportunity to extend gameplay by purchasing additional virtual coins. Plaintiffs alleged that this practice also violated Washington's Recover of Money Lost at Gambling Act ("RMLGA"), the Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA") and common law unjust enrichment. Creating a Mobile App Game When creating mobile app games, developers must be careful to: 1) follow the mobile app store platform provider policies of Apple and Android; 2) comply with applicable state and federal laws; and 3) adhere to certain regulatory guidelines promulgated by governmental agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Given the time that the public spends on their mobile phones today, lawmakers are increasingly focused on consumer protection in the mobile platform economy. As such, to ensure that their mobile app games remain compliant, app developers should stay up to date on evolving state and federal laws, and rules and regulations. [GN] IMPERIAL PACIFIC: Suit Seeks to Certify Turkish H-2B Workers Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as OZCAN GENC, HASAN GOKCE, and SULEYMAN KOS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL (CNMI), LLC, IMPERIAL PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD. (IPI), and IDS DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & CONSULTANCY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00031 (D.N. Mar. Is.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily certifying as a class: "all Turkish H-2B workers petitioned in 2019 by IPI and employed by IPI in Saipan in 2020"; 2. finding that the 28 Turkish workers whose written consents have affirmatively and effectively opted in to the collective action; and 3. issuing opt-in notice to all potential members of the collective-action class. The Plaintiffs contend that the Turkish workers who came to work for the Defendants in Saipan on the H-2B temporary worker program in 2019–20 are similarly situated. CNMI is a Chinese investment holding company. It was founded with headquarters in Hong Kong and originally named First Natural Foods Holdings until it was renamed in May 2014. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification of collective action dated Dec. 10, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2Wc3sep at no extra charge.[CC] 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 IOWA: Rowe, et al. Seek to Certify Class of Registered Nurses ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. ROWE, CHRISTINE M. KLEIBER, TAMMY D. BURDEN, JULIE A. SCHROPP, STACEY L. GOOD, individually and on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. KIMBERLY KAY REYNOLDS, in her official capacity as Governor State of Iowa, JAMES M. KURTENBACH, in his official capacity with Iowa Department of Administrative Services; and the STATE OF IOWA, Case No. 4:19-cv-00256-JAJ-SBJ (S.D. Iowa), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. certifying a proposed Plaintiff class under Iowa Code 91A: "all Registered Nurses (RNs) who have worked in Job Classifications 02020 and 82020 providing care and assistance to patients or residents at state facilities at any time beginning July 1, 2017;" 2. appointing Bruce H. Stoltze, Sr. as lead class counsel and Bruce H. Stoltze, Jr. and John Q. Stoltze of the law firm of Stoltze & Stoltze, PLC and Christopher A. Kragnes, Sr. and Kaitlyn C. DiMaria of Kragnes & Associates, PC as co- counsel; and 3. appointing themselves as Class Representatives. Iowa, a Midwestern U.S. state, sits between the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. It's known for its landscape of rolling plains and cornfields. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification dated Dec. 10, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a5z8uc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bruce H. Stoltze, Esq. STOLTZE & STOLTZE, PLC 300 Walnut Street, Suite 260 Des Moines, IO 50309 Telephone: (515) 244-1473 Facsimile: (515) 244-3930 E-mail: bruce.stoltze@stoltzelaw.com JBS SA: Settles Pork Price-Fixing Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Mike Leonard, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a JBS SA subsidiary has settled part of a pork price-fixing lawsuit in Minnesota federal court, about two weeks after a judge said the antitrust case could move forward against top U.S. meat processors, including affiliates of Tyson Foods Inc. and Hormel Foods Corp. The agreement, disclosed in a court filing on Nov. 4, would resolve proposed class action claims brought by "direct purchasers" like wholesalers, but not consumer or retailer claims that are consolidated with them in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Nypl Files Certiorari Petition in Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Nypl filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled JOHN NYPL, Petitioner v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-770. Response is due on January 4, 2021. The Plaintiff files a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case titled JOHN NYPL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Defendant-Appellee, SIMON FOWLES, Real-party-in-interest-Appellee, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Movant-Appellee, Case No. 19-15293. The Court of Appeals rendered its decision on April 28, 2020. The Court denied a timely petition for rehearing en banc on July 1, 2020. The questions presented are: 1. Whether this Court should decide an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, with regard to the applicable burden on a moving-party seeking to quash the subpoena of a non-party witness under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). 2. Whether, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, the court where subpoena compliance is required must weigh and/or defer to the opinion of the court where the action is pending in ruling on a motion to quash the subpoena of a non-party witness. Plaintiffs John Nypl, et al. brought this suit on behalf of a nationwide putative class of purchasers and end-users of foreign currency transactions from banks at benchmark exchange rates fixed, rigged, and manipulated by Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., JP Morgan Chase & Co, J.P. Morgan Bank, N.A., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC North American Holdings, Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp, Citibank, N.A., UBS AG, Barclays PLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Royal Bank of Scotland, PLC, and other unnamed co-conspirators, pursuant to a conspiracy, combination and agreement to fix, rig and manipulate foreign currency benchmark exchange rates in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, including treble damages, to compensate them for overcharge damages caused by reason of the unlawful conspiracy. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner John Nypl is represented by: Joseph Michaelangelo Alioto, Esq. ALIOTO LAW FIRM One Sansome Street, 35th Floor San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 434-8900 E-mail: jmalioto@aliotolaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 23 Motion 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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] KENYA CENTRAL BANK: Faces Class Suit on Imperial Bank Decision -------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Media reports that depositors of Imperial Bank that are currently in receivership have initiated a class-action suit against Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) over the decision to place the firm under receivership. In a notice filed at the High Court, 11 shareholders are inviting members of the public to be enjoined in the lawsuit by December 21, 2020. "This notice is to inform you that you may apply to the court to be made a party to the suit within 45 days from publication of this notice," reads the notice delivered through Muriu Mungai and Co Advocates. Through the petition, Nafisa Kanji and 10 other members of his family want the court to declare the decision by CBK to place Imperial Bank under receivership in 2015 as "unlawful, unreasonable and in violation of Article 47 of the constitution". The petition also seeks to have the decision by the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) to suspend the banking business of Imperial Bank declared a violation of their right to fair administrative action under Article 47 of the constitution and the Fair Administrative Action Act, 2015. The suit comes a year after the High Court gave the green light to the family to proceed with a class-action suit against the industry regulator. Granted Leave In a ruling delivered in May last year, Judge Mary Kasango granted orders the family had sought against the CBK and KDIC. "The petitioners are hereby granted leave to institute or proceed with this petition in a representative capacity on their own behalf and on behalf of depositors of Imperial Bank Limited (under receivership)," said the court ruling. Imperial Bank was placed under receivership on October 13, 2015 following fraudulent activities that came to light days after the death of the firm's Managing Director Abdulmalek Janmohamed. At the time, the bank had 52,398 accounts with Sh48.1 billion customer deposits, according to data from CBK. The bank also had a sizeable loan book with Sh31.8 billion in loans and advances made as of December 2014, and Sh605 million in mortgages. A forensic report by American firm FTI Consulting in 2016 found insider fraud at the bank where senior executives falsified reporting systems. According to court documents, the Kanji family is also seeking to have their full deposits amounting to Sh103 million returned with seven per cent interest. In May this year, KCB Group assumed Sh3.2 billion in assets and liabilities of Imperial Bank following approval by the CBK. "From June 2, 2020, Imperial Bank Ltd (in receivership) depositors will be paid a total of Sh3.2 billion over a period of four years," said the CBK in a statement. "Subsequently, the depositors will have cumulatively recovered 37.3 per cent of the deposits since 2015 when payouts were commenced." [GN] KROGER LIMITED: Morgan Personal Injury Suit Removed to S.D. Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jodi Morgan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kroger Limited Partnership I doing business as "Ruler Foods, Inc.," Case No. 2020CH7, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court, Richland County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on November 25, 2020. The case arises from personal injury-related issues and is assigned to the Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty. Kroger Limited Partnership I is located in Cincinnati, Ohio and is part of the department stores industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 Facsimile: (312) 233-1560 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter E. Pederson, Esq. Joseph D. Kern, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP - CHICAGO 151 N. Franklin Street, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 704-3000 Facsimile: (312) 704-3001 E-mail: ppederson@hinshawlaw.com jkern@hinshawlaw.com LEXUS OF MANHATTAN: Briefing on Class Certification Bid Resumes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN WATSON, et al., v. LEXUS OF MANHATTAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-04572-LGS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered an order: 1. denying the Plaintiffs' discovery application and request for leave to file a motion for sanctions; 2. canceling the discovery conference scheduled for December 10, 2020, at 10:50 a.m.; and 3. lifting the stay of Plaintiffs' class certification motion briefing. The Defendant shall file its opposition by December 18, 2020, and the Plaintiffs' reply is due January 7, 2021. The Court said the State Inspection and Special Service text messages are not "identical variants" of the Maintenance text messages, as they were not in practice treated by Defendants as the same message. Thus discovery is neither relevant nor proportional to the claims alleged in the First Amended Complaint, which refer to the Maintenance text messages only, and for the same reasons, there is no basis to impose sanctions on the Defendant for failing to produce such text messages. Prejudice against the Defendant also weighs in favor of denying the discovery application, as the request was made near the end of fact discovery, and after the Plaintiffs' class certification motion filing and Defendant's obtaining expert opinions. This ruling is without prejudice to any settlement class definition that the parties may agree on, should the parties desire to resolve the matter in that manner. A copy of Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3nf6SJq at no extra charge.[CC] LINKEDIN CORP: Topdevz Sues Over Inaccurate Advertising Metrics --------------------------------------------------------------- TOPDEVZ, LLC, and NOIREFY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-08324-SVK (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violation of the California's Unfair Competition Law, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied duty to perform with reasonable care, and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. One of LinkedIn's primary sources of revenue as an online platform is charging advertisers for the opportunity to place advertisements on the LinkedIn platform. The overwhelming majority of LinkedIn advertisers are small businesses. According to the complaint, the metrics LinkedIn gives advertisers including the Plaintiffs regarding the nature of its audiences and user engagement are systematically distorted to benefit LinkedIn. These distortions have increased the price of LinkedIn advertising for years. LinkedIn also has been able to inflate the price of its advertising by misreporting user activity that it knows is fraudulent or otherwise does not reflect the benefit of the bargain that it struck with advertisers. Allegedly, LinkedIn's use of inaccurate advertising metrics also breached LinkedIn's contract with its advertisers. LinkedIn collected premium prices because it markets itself as an online network that delivers ads to high quality professional audiences. Advertisers reasonably expected that LinkedIn would provide accurate metrics on video views and other forms of user engagement with advertisements. LinkedIn would not have been able to collect, and Plaintiffs and Class members would not have paid, the same premium prices for LinkedIn advertising if LinkedIn had not used false and inflated metrics to describe the nature of and engagement from its audiences, the suit says. LinkedIn Corporation operates an online platform that allows individuals to monitor, maintain, and expand their professional networks. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Warren Postman, Esq. Jason Ethridge, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 918-1123 Facsimile: (312) 971-3502 E-mail: wdp@kellerlenkner.com jason.ethridge@kellerlenkner.com - and - Marquel Reddish, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-5220 Facsimile: (312) 971-3502 E-mail: mpr@kellerlenkner.com LYFT INC: Faces Class Action in California Over WAV Services ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Flood, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a lawsuit accusing Lyft Inc. of unlawfully discriminating against wheelchair users in the San Francisco Bay Area will move forward to trial, after a federal court in California said that the rideshare technology company didn't qualify for an exception in the Americans With Disabilities Act. Lyft provides riders in some cities with an "Access" mode to indicate their need for a wheelchair-accessible vehicle. Disability rights organizations Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco and Community Resources for Independent Living and several disabled individuals brought a potential class action, alleging Lyft's WAV services are more restrictive than its other services. [GN] LYFT INC: Loses Bid to Overturn Calif. Supreme Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Wiessner at Reuters reports that a California state appeals court has rejected Lyft Inc's claim that a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding class-action waivers in employee arbitration agreements also applies to claims brought under a unique law allowing workers to sue for labor-law violations on behalf of the state. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District in San Francisco said the 2018 Supreme Court ruling in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis applied only to "victim-specific" claims by workers who signed arbitration agreements, as opposed to those brought under California's Private Attorney General Act in which plaintiffs serve as proxies for the state. [GN] MAKER: Class Action Over Collateralized Debt Positions Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Black Chronicle reports that the Makerdao and the stablecoin DAI has been a well-liked venture within the decentralized finance (defi) house and its additionally had its share of issues. The venture referred to as Bprotocol leveraged a defi flash mortgage to be able to sway a Makerdao governance vote. The event staff behind the Maker venture goals to make it tougher for issues like defi flash loans going ahead. For the reason that ventures inception, Makerdao, also known as Maker, has been a defi venture that has seen a whole lot of demand. The Maker venture is liable for creating one of many first decentralized stablecoins referred to as DAI, which leverages overcollateralization and oracles to carry a peg. DAI is used on exchanges and is recurrently used inside the defi world on numerous purposes like Compound, Uniswap, and Aave. The venture has additionally seen a variety of points through the years and skeptics have questioned the integrity of the Makerdao protocol. A couple of examples embrace the stablecoin having issues holding its $1 peg, as there have been numerous votes held to handle the difficulty. Then on March 12, 2020, in any other case generally known as Black Thursday, the Maker venture had major difficulties when the worth of ETH crashed, as many Collateralized Debt Positions (CDP) had been ravaged. This brought on the Maker venture to get sued in a class action lawsuit, which continues to be ongoing. The crypto group has been complaining about Makerdaos recent governance ballot, which noticed the Bprotocol venture sway a Maker governance vote. Mainly, by leveraging the controversial flash mortgage course of, Bprotocol used an uncollaterized mortgage to borrow roughly $7 million price of MKR. With the requirement to vote with MKR, the flash mortgage made it so Bprotocol may affect the ballot a fantastic deal. One other vote is going down to deal with the difficulty, so it gainedt occur once more together with elevating the quantity of MKR wanted to use governance stake. Makerdaos governance coordinator, Longforwisdom, and different group members conversed in regards to the subject in a Maker discussion board dialogue referred to as: Updates Flash Loans and securing the Maker Protocol. As promised, Im offering an replace now [that] the present hat exceeded 100ok MKR, Longforwisdom wrote. As talked about beforehand, the contents of this spell are as follows: -- A GSM pause delay enhance from 12 hours to 72 hours. -- The Oracle Freeze Module (OsmMom) will likely be deauthorized. -- The Liquidations Freeze Module / Circuit Breaker (FlipperMom) will likely be deauthorized. The flash mortgage has Maker group members involved {that a} malicious governance assault may severely harm the venture. Growing the MKR requirement and the deactivation of the 2 modules might solely result in a short lived bandage. Alongside this, crypto group members additionally marvel if different Ethereum-based defi governance protocols will be gamed by an uncollaterized flash mortgage. [GN] MCDONALD'S: Black Franchisees File Racial Discrimination Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Intelligencer reports that McDonald's Corp has been named as the defendant in a lawsuit filed by Black franchisees, who accuse the Chicago-based company of racial discrimination. Four-store Tennessee franchisees and brothers, James and Darrell Byrd, said in the Chicago federal suit that the chain led them to purchase poorly-performing locations. The proposed class action is seeking damages of up to $5 million per store, according to Reuters. The Byrds' attorneys filed a previous suit on Aug. 31 against the massive fast food chain saying that McDonald's put Black franchisees in stores in blighted areas that required higher costs and yield lower sales. In that case, 52 Black former McDonald's franchisees were listed as plaintiffs. For its part, McDonald's has denied the allegations and moved to dismiss the suit filed in August that sought $1 billion in damages. The latest suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN] MEDELA LLC: Faces Angeles ADA Class Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Medela LLC. The case is captioned as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Medela LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-09967-VEC (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 25, 2020). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Judge Valerie E. Caproni is assigned to the case. Medela LLC is a supplier of breast pumps, breastfeeding accessories and medical vacuum technology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MEWBOURNE OIL: Hay Creek Files Class Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mewbourne Oil Company. The case is captioned as Hay Creek Royalties LLC, on behalf of itself, and Hay Creek Royalties LLC, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mewbourne Oil Company, Case No. 5:20-cv-01199-JD (W.D. Okla., November 25, 2020). The case arises from contract-related issues and is assigned to the Honorable Judge Jodi W. Dishman. Mewbourne Oil Company, established in 1965, is a prominent independent oil and natural gas producer in the Anadarko Basin of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas and in the Permian Basin of Texas and New Mexico. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles V. Knutter, Esq. David R. Gleason, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON PC 211 N Robinson Ave., Suite 1350 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-3357 Facsimile: (405) 232-6515 E-mail: cknutter@moricoli.com dgleason@moricoli.com - and - Reagan E Bradford, Esq. Ryan K. Wilson, Esq. BRADFORD & WILSON PLLC 431 W. Main Street, Suite D Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 698-2770 Facsimile: (405) 234-5506 E-mail: reagan@bradwil.com ryan@bradwil.com MOBILELINK LOUISIANA: Scott, et al. Seek to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COREY D. SCOTT, ET AL., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOBILELINK LOUISIANA, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00826-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of similarly situated individuals (Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Class), consisting of: "Individuals who, within the three-year period preceding the date of the Court's Order, were employed as sales personnel for Mobilelink Louisiana, LLC, and who's overtime compensation did not include earned commissions;" 2. authorizing notice of the collective action to potential members of the FLSA Collective Class; 3. directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days a computer-readable database that includes the names of all potential members of the FLSA Collective Class along with their last known mailing address and telephone number; and 4. approving the proposed notice and consent form. The Plaintiffs contend that the members of the proposed FLSA Collective Class are similarly situated for purposes of notice and conditional certification because: (a) they all are (or were) sales personnel performing sales and other related activities for Mobilelink at various locations for Mobilelink throughout Louisiana; (b) they all had similar job duties and requirements; and (c) they all are or were subjected to the same illegal payroll practice. The Plaintiffs Corey Scott, Rashad Williams, and Steven Williams bring this action on behalf of themselves and a proposed collective class of sales personnel seeking unpaid wages and other damages caused by certain payroll practices of the Defendant Mobilelink that violated the FLSA. Mr. Scott has been working for Mobilelink since December 2018. Mr. Scott generally works 60 or more hours in a workweek. Mr. Rashad Williams worked for Mobilelink starting in December 2018 until July 2019. Mr. Steven Williams worked for Mobilelink starting May 21, 2018 until about the middle of June 2020. Both generally worked 60 or more hours in a workweek. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of class claims dated Dec. 9, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2K01WcV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Bullman, Esq. Brian F. Blackwell, Esq. BLACKWELL & BULLMAN, LLC 8322 One Calais Ave. Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 769-2462 Facsimile: (225) 769-2463 E-mail: james@blackwell-bullman.com NANO: Otto 'Bitcoins' Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Investors -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEC OTTO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NANO F/K/A RAIBLOCKS F/K/A HIEUSYS, LLC; COLIN LEMAHIEU; MICA BUSCH; ZACH SHAPIRO; TROY RETZER; BG SERVICES, S.R.L. F/K/A BITGRAIL S.R.L. F/K/A WEBCOIN SOLUTIONS; and FRANCESCO "THE BOMBER" FIRANO, Case No. 4:19-cv-00054-YGR (N.D. Cal., Filed Jan. 3, 2019), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 24, 2021, to enter an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all BitGrail investors and account holders who are citizens of the United States, and who, between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in, or stake XRB." Excluded from the class are: the Defendants themselves, the Defendants' retail employees, the Defendants' corporate officers, members of Defendants' boards of directors, Defendants' senior executives, the Defendants' affiliates, and any and all judicial officers (and their staff) assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation.; 2. appointing himself as class representative for the Class and the Alternative Class; and 3. appointing Levi & Korsinsky LLP, Silver Miller, and Zelle LLP as Class Counsel. If the Court chooses not to certify the Class, the Plaintiff proposes an alternative class consisting of: "All BitGrail investors and accountholders who are citizens of California, and who, between April 1, 2017 and March 31, 2018, transferred bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency to BitGrail to purchase, invest in, or stake XRB. Excluded from the class are: the Defendants themselves, the Defendants' retail employees, Defendants' corporate officers, members of the Defendants' boards of directors, the Defendants' senior executives, the Defendants' affiliates, and any and all judicial officers (and their staff) assigned to hear or adjudicate any aspect of this litigation." The Plaintiff asserts interconnected claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud identical to the claims of numerous others against the same Defendants, and seek damages for the same type of harm against the Defendants in this Action. The Plaintiff's claims for negligence are premised on the basis that the Nano Defendants had a legal duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the management of XRB. The Defendants breached that duty by failing to implement idempotence into the XRB protocol and failing to disclose material information, restricting Defendant Firano from shutting down BitGrail with knowledge of safety concerns, failing to disclose the theft and exploitation of XRB from July 2017 through January 2018. The Nano Defendants created a cryptocurrency token known as XRB in December 2014 under the brand name "RaiBlocks." As early as February 2016, XRB was promoted by the Nano Defendants as a free way to transact and settle micropayments. Promotion of XRB grew from then and throughout the class period, and so did the Nano Defendants' vision for mass adoption of XRB, in which the Nano Defendants wielded absolute control over all aspects of XRB. A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification dated Dec. 8, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ac17sl at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Carriel, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Suite 375 Telephone: (202) 899-4111 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: jcarriel@zelle.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Zachary B. Ness, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th St., NW, Ste. 115 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4292 Facsimile: (202) 363-7171 - and - Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 388 Market Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Facsimile: (415) 484-1294 - and - David C. Silver, Esq. Jason S. Miller, Esq. Todd R. Friedman, Esq. SILVER MILLER 11780 W. Sample Road Coral Springs, FL 33065 Telephone: (954) 516-6000 NEW YORK BEER: Maldonado Sues Over Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERTO MALDONADO, ALEXANDER UNGER, SAUL MARTINEZ, and SERGIO ALDANA DIAZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. NEW YORK BEER CO LLC d/b/a JACOB'S PICKLES, THE PICKLE PEOPLE LLC d/b/a MAISON PICKLE, PUNCH THE PICKLE LLC d/b/a LUCKY PICKLE DUMPLING CO., TIKI CHICKI LLC d/b/a TIKI CHICK, IAKOVOS HADJIGEORGIS, and GEORGE HADJIGEORGIS, Case No. 1:20-cv-10309 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 8, 2020) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and similarly situated workers seeking from the Defendants: (1) unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, (2) unpaid wages due to off-the-clock work, (3) misappropriated tips, (4) unlawful wage deductions, (5) liquidated damages, and (6) attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to FLSA and NYLL. Plaintiff Maldonado was employed by the Defendants as a bartender at Jacob's Pickles restaurant from in or around June 2019 through July 17, 2020. Plaintiff Unger was employed by the Defendants as a bartender at Jacob's Pickles restaurant from in or around July 2019 through March 16, 2020. Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants at Jacob's Pickles restaurant (i) as a barback from in or around 2015 until in or around March 2018 and (ii) as a bartender from in or around April 2018 until in or around February 2020. Plaintiff Aldana Diaz was employed by the Defendants as a busser from on or around October 4, 2012 until on or around July 9, 2019. The Defendants own and operat a restaurant under the name "Pickle Hospitality," comprised of four restaurants in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Angela Kwon, Esq. William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1174 New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (718) 971-0326 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: akwon@bkllawyers.com wbrown@bkllawyers.com ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL: Peticos Civil Rights Suit Removed to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled Shawn Peticos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates PA, Case No. 7:20-cv-04106-TMC (D.S.C., Nov. 25, 2020), Case No. 2020-CP-42-03041, was removed from the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas, South Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the District of South Carolina assigned Case No. 7:20-cv-04106-TMC to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over Defendant's alleged violation of the Civil Rights Act. The case is assigned to the Honorable Judge Timothy M. Cain. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates PA provides oral and maxillofacial surgery procedures.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Thomas Chase Samples, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS PC 15 South Main Street, Suite 700 Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 672-8034 E-mail: chase.samples@jacksonlewis.com PLATEPASS LLC: Grabowski Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled Bartosz Grabowski, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. Platepass, L.L.C., Case No. 2020-CH-06456, was removed from the Illinois Circuit Court of Cook County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on November 25, 2020. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Illinois assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-07003 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged damage to personal property. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey. Platepass, LLC is an electronic toll payment system company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Geske, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 E-mail: pgeske@mcgpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Garrett L Boehm, Jr., Esq. Michael Joseph Linneman, Esq. JOHNSON & BELL, LTD. 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 372-0770 E-mail: boehmg@jbltd.com linnemanm@jbltd.com PROTECH SOLUTIONS: Faces PUA Applicants' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Lindsey Millar, writing for Arkansas Nonprofit News Network, reports that when Rebecca Towne was laid off April 15 from her job as a tax preparer for Jackson Hewitt, she figured she would find another job. Like many Arkansans, she'd never drawn unemployment in her life and didn't plan to start then. But Towne, 51, couldn't find work anywhere in Marion County that spring, as businesses closed their doors and laid off workers in response to the coronavirus pandemic. By July, she was borrowing money from her adult daughter to feed herself and her youngest daughter. She filed for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, or PUA, the first week of July. Towne said she was told she would be able to backdate her claims going back to April 16, meaning she'd get $600 from the federal government and a maximum of $132 from the state for each week she was without work. As of October, Towne had received a grand total of just $780 in benefits, for two weeks in August. (By that point, the weekly federal bonus payments had decreased from $600 to $300.) Her claims for April, May, June and July were denied by the Arkansas Division of Workforce Services. After repeated phone calls, she's still unsure why. "You guys say I qualify, you say I'm going to be able to get help, and then you deny everything," Towne said in a phone interview. In August, she resumed working as a paraprofessional at a nearby school, and she now brings home under $1,100 monthly from the job — not enough to cover rent, bills and groceries. As of October 13, DWS had received almost 238,000 applications for PUA, the program established by the federal government this spring to assist independent contractors, gig workers, the self-employed and others who lost work due to the COVID-19 crisis. Many such workers do not qualify for regular unemployment insurance, which is designed for workers classified as employees. The PUA program, which was created by Congress as part of the CARES Act, has provided an economic lifeline for tens of thousands of households in Arkansas. Yet over 54,000 of those PUA claims had been flagged for internal review by Arkansas DWS as of October 13, according to spokeswoman Zoë Calkins. That number is almost a quarter of the total, and twice as many as the agency said were under review on August 4. A flagged claim remains frozen until the review is complete, which can leave applicants in limbo for weeks or months. DWS has had to develop new processes and policies to investigate suspected fraud in the PUA system, Calkins said. The regular unemployment insurance system is funded largely by payroll taxes collected from employers, so workforce services agencies usually turn to employers for help when investigating suspected fraud. In contrast, a PUA claim filed by an independent contractor or self-employed person does not involve an employer. A PUA applicant must self-certify that he or she lost work due to the pandemic and provide proof of income, such as last year's tax return and recent invoices. Calkins said DWS began using "algorithms" over the summer to help identify suspicious PUA claims that require further investigation. But she declined to provide details about where the algorithms originated, saying only that they were developed through "a combined effort coordinated across internal and external entities." Calkins said in an email that DWS does not keep track of how many flagged claims have been confirmed to be fraudulent or how many have been cleared and released since the program began in May. When asked what type of situations might result in a claim being flagged, Calkins said the agency is "not sharing this information for security purposes." Arkansas's experience with PUA has been troubled from the beginning. The state was slower to roll out the program than many others, in part because its computer system for processing regular unemployment claims lacked the capacity to handle the new program. It hired a vendor, Protech Solutions of Little Rock, to build a new system for PUA from scratch in April. Arkansans started filing PUA claims on May 1, but a glitch caused some 5,700 applicants' documents to be lost the first week the system was online. Then, on May 15, the Arkansas Times published a story calling attention to a security flaw in the new web portal that left thousands of applicants' personal information exposed, including Social Security numbers and bank account numbers. The Times was notified of the vulnerability by an out-of-work software programmer who was applying for assistance. DWS was forced to take the website offline for several days to repair the problem. Protech Solutions is now the subject of a class action lawsuit by PUA applicants who say the company's negligence exposed them to possible identity theft and delayed their receipt of benefits. A DWS official told the state legislature in September it had found no evidence of fraud connected to the incident, though an FBI investigation is ongoing. But identity theft has now become a problem for PUA systems across the country, with scammers submitting millions of applications using others' personal information. California was so overwhelmed with fraudulent claims that it recently stopped accepting new applications for two weeks. In Arkansas, Governor Hutchinson received a letter this summer notifying him he had applied for assistance, as did Rep. Fred Love (D-Little Rock), the minority leader in the state House of Representatives. As DWS attempts to weed out fake claims, however, thousands of real Arkansans have been left stranded. Bryce Youngblood, 26, of Horatio, said he typically made $1,400 a week on contract as an industrial welder before the pandemic began. The company he worked for shut its doors in March, he said, but soon after he applied for PUA, his account was placed under review by DWS. After months of making calls and leaving unreturned messages, Youngblood said, he has gotten no help from the state. He's had to sell his truck and move in with his brother while he scrapes by on odd jobs. "I still have yet to receive anything," he said in a phone interview. "And I have already lost every single thing I had." Robyn Socarro, 47, runs a dog-walking service in Benton County and lives just across the state line in Pineville, MO. Her business plummeted in March and April as her clients began working from home, cutting back on expenses and taking safety precautions. In those early months of the pandemic, it was unclear whether dogs could spread the novel coronavirus. (Canine infections are now thought to be extremely rare.) Socarro applied for PUA in May and initially received several weeks of backdated payments. But in mid-June, the money stopped without explanation and her PUA account was locked for review. For the next three weeks, she said, she called DWS almost daily in search of answers. "They threw out the baby with the bathwater," she said, referring to the state's fraud prevention efforts. "There were thousands of people, and it was just, poof, too bad for you, we're not telling you squat. Y'all figure out for yourself how you're gonna live. I can understand having some problems, but I don't understand their lack of communication." By mid-July, she'd given up on PUA and was piecing together cleaning and dog-sitting gigs as best she could. Then, unexpectedly, Socarro received a call from a woman at DWS who demanded to know why she'd applied for unemployment in Arkansas when she lived in Missouri. Socarro explained that she earned all of her income in Arkansas and filed her taxes in Arkansas. In fact, she said, she initially tried to apply for unemployment in Missouri but the state's workforce services system had steered her to the Arkansas system instead. The DWS worker accepted the explanation — but did not unlock her account. Instead, Socarro said, she was told to wait for another call. Another month passed before she received an email asking for her previous year's tax return and other financial information, which she provided. At last, a letter arrived from DWS telling her to show up in person at a workforce services office and verify her identity. In September, Socarro finally received her PUA money for June. It all went toward paying off the credit card debt she accrued while she was out of work, she said. She's now working a janitorial job and is trying to rebuild her dog-walking business. Though she thinks she's still owed partial payments for July, she's not going to press the issue. "Just forget it. I can just eat more beans right now," she said. "And I'm one of the lucky ones." She knows many people, she said, who abandoned their claims after endless hours of trying and failing to reach anyone at DWS. Calkins, the DWS spokeswoman, declined to say whether an out-of-state home address might result in a claim being flagged by the agency, citing security concerns. "There's a number of reasons an account can be flagged, and we don't call them fraudulent claims until a full, due-process investigation has been done," she said in a phone call. Applicants with locked PUA claims should be able to unlock their accounts once they receive a letter in the mail instructing them to verify their ID in person at a workforce center, Calkins said. Since July, the agency has trained 100 additional staff statewide to handle identity verification for locked claims, and it held seven "PUA Authentication events" in August in an attempt to resolve issues for large numbers of people. DWS has doubled the number of staff assigned to handle in-person and telephone inquiries about both PUA and regular unemployment since March. Meanwhile, Rebecca Towne is still waiting for answers about why her appeal was denied. She said she's received conflicting explanations from DWS. One worker told her the problem was that her tax prep job was seasonal and the April 15 layoff had been scheduled in advance. Later, she was told that she shouldn't have chosen "other" on a question asking applicants to select a reason why they were applying for PUA. She's tried to challenge the denial but has been told the appeals process is at a standstill due to a backlog at the Arkansas Appeal Tribunal. "I can't even get anyone to help try to fix it," Towne said. "I've been so lost and confused." "I think they're doing all of this so they don't have to pay this money out," she said. "I know people in other states who were laid off who had no problem, and all I've done is jump through hoops for months." This reporting is courtesy of the Arkansas Nonprofit News Network. ANNN is an independent, nonpartisan news project supported in part by magnoliareporter.com , and dedicated to producing journalism that matters to Arkansans. CLICK HERE to read more about ANNN. Since Rebecca Towne's job ended April 15, she has struggled to make ends meet for herself and her daughter, Nikki. The state has offered little help. [GN] PRUDENT PET: Tucker Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prudent Pet Insurance Agency, LLC. The case is styled as Henry Tucker, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Prudent Pet Insurance Agency, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10304 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Prudent Pet -- https://www.prudentpet.com/ -- offers health insurance plans that can be customized to accommodate the pet's needs. [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 QUEBEC: Court Affirms Low Threshold for Class Action Authorization ------------------------------------------------------------------ Elizabeth Raymer at Canadian Lawyer Mag reports that the threshold to certify class actions remains low in Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada has found in ruling that a lawsuit by investors against mutual fund sellers and managers in that province can proceed. In a 6/3 decision Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc. v. Asselin, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, limiting the scope of damages being sought. In upholding the Quebec Court of Appeal decision, the court narrowed the class action's punitives claim. The court noted that once the four conditions set out in art. 1003 of the former Code of Civil Procedure are met, a judge must authorize a class action. As well, she or he has no residual discretion to deny authorization on the pretext that a class action is not the most appropriate vehicle for the litigation. The authorizing judge's role is to simply filter out frivolous claims. "It's a very significant victory for investors, and class actions generally, from a plaintiff's perspective," Bruce Johnston, counsel for the plaintiff respondent in the case, told Canadian Lawyer. The decision "refers to the obligations of companies proposing investments," said Johnston, a partner in Trudel Johnston & Lespérance in Montreal, and some of the court's reasoning in the decision could be applicable to claims by investors outside Quebec. The plaintiffs in the class "are alleging omission; by definition, omission can affect all members of a class without the need to inquire" into the specifics of each. "It may be that it will have some echo outside of Quebec." Today's decision was also consistent with the majority reasoning in recent Supreme Court judgments on Quebec class actions, notably Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs, Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell'Aniello, and L'Oratoire Saint‑Joseph du Mont‑Royal v. J.J., which all confirmed a low threshold for authorization. "It really reaffirms" those decisions, says Johnston; and the Quebec Court of Appeal decision in the case has already been cited over 100 times in Quebec case law, he says. "The fact that the Supreme Court accepted to hear this case, there was speculation that state of law as expressed in Infineon, Vivendi, and St. Joseph was going to be modified. "The answer was no; the Court of Appeal has interpreted our line of cases correctly" in respect to certification, and finding that "if you allow the certification/authorization stage to get out of hand procedurally, you are creating delays which really should be dealt with at the merit stage." The representative class plaintiff and respondent, Ronald Asselin, was a long-time member of the financial cooperative Desjardins Group, which offers various financial services to investors. In 2005 and then in 2007, he purchased principal-protected term deposits from Caisse Desjardins that were not redeemable before maturity. Following the economic crisis of 2008, Asselin was informed that although the principal was protected his investments would not yield any return and would continue not to be cashable until the end of the term. He later received a report that his deposits had yielded 0 per cent growth. In 2011 he filed an application for authorization of a class action against Desjardins Financial Services Firm Inc. on behalf of all persons holding the same types of products. Asselin alleged that investors had not been informed of a specific risk that could affect their yield. He argued that the Firm was contractually liable to the members of the class action group for breaching its duty to inform, and alleged both direct and indirect fault. He also argued that the Firm's Management was extracontractually liable to the group's members for breaching its duties of competence with regard to design and management, resulting in a loss of all the assets allocated to the return. Quebec's Superior Court dismissed the motion to authorize the class action against the Firm and its Management, finding that Asselin had not shown that his proposed action in contractual liability against Firm and in extracontractual liability against Management met the condition of art. 1003(b) of the former Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec, namely that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought." She also found there were no common questions as stipulated in art. 1003(a): "the recourses of the members raise identical, similar or related questions of law or fact." The Court of Appeal allowed Asselin's appeal and authorized the class action against both Firm and Management. In his reasons for the majority, Justice Nicholas Kasirer noted the "dual fault" of Desjardins: in failing to inform its own representatives of a specific risk in a product it was selling, and of the representatives then failing to inform investors. "The proposed class action against [the Desjardins] Firm concerns … a contractual breach of its duty to inform that grounds both its direct liability, for its failure to provide information to its representatives, and its indirect liability, for the incomplete information provided by the representatives to the group's members," Justice Kasirer wrote. "In both cases, the alleged omissions are systematic in nature. They do not depend on each client's individual characteristics," he wrote. The "typical argument" presented against investor class actions is that one needs "to inquire of each individual what information they had, and how that factored into their decision," Johnston says. "The majority found that the omission by the defendant to inform its own people of the risks necessarily trickled down to each individual plaintiff. Also, the obligation to provide information is what's called in civil law ‘an obligation of result.' That means you have to do it, and if you don't do it the court can presume that the plaintiff would not have contracted had they had the information they were entitled to. That's a very significant point. And there's a disagreement between the majority and dissent as to whether that's available." Dissenting in part, Justice Suzanne Côté, with Justices Michael Moldaver and Russell Brown concurring, took "a much stricter view of what type of case can be authorized, or certified, as a class action," said Johnston. They would have would have refused authorization of the class action against the Firm but allowed it against the Management, for compensatory and not punitive damages. The dissenting justices found that the only contract that could trigger the Firm's contractual liability in this case was the contract between each client and the Firm by way of a representative; this was a contract for services, the sole purpose of which was providing financial advice. The nature of the relationship between client and financial advisor is highly individualized, and as such it would be impossible to find common questions so as to satisfy the requirements for class actions, the minority found. The case will now be allowed to proceed on the merits, involving tens of thousands of people, he says. [GN] RALPH GOOD: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ralph Good, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Ralph Good, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10248 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ralph Good, Inc. -- https://www.goodschips.com/ -- manufactures chips. The Company offers potato, corn, and related chips, as well as pretzels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com RAYTHEON TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Dec. 29 Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Raytheon Technologies Corporation. ("Raytheon" or the "Company") (NYSE: RTX) from February 10, 2016 through October 27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Raytheon securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Raytheon 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: (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'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 U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"); and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On October 27, 2020, after market hours, Raytheon filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020, (the "3Q20 Report"). The 3Q Report announced the DOJ Investigation. On 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, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you purchased Raytheon securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/raytheontechnologiescorporation-rtx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-330/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. 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. 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. 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. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] RAYTHEON TECH: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces 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, both dates 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] RAYTHEON TECH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP disclosed that class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of Raytheon Technologies Corporation. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE:RTX) RTX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased February 10, 2016 - October 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/raytheon-technologies-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=10701&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Raytheon Technologies Corporation made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Raytheon had inadequate disclosure controls and procedures and inadequate 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 U.S. Department of Justice; and (6) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 http://www.zlk.com[GN] RAYTHEON TECH: Rosen Law Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Raytheon Technologies Corporation f/k/a Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTX, RTN) between February 10, 2016 and October 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Raytheon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Raytheon class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1975.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) 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'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 U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"); and (6) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 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-1975.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. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] RICHEMONT NORTH: Cota Files Suit in S.D. Cal. Over ADA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richemont North America, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as Julissa Cota, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Richemont North America, Inc. d/b/a IWC Schaffhausen, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-02313-AJB-MDD (S.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2020). The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case is assigned to Judge Anthony J. Battaglia. Richemont North America Inc. manufactures luxury goods providing wholesale distribution of jewelry, precious stones and metals, costume jewelry, watches, clocks, and silverware. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Portnoy Law Reminds of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (NYSE: RCL) investors that acquired shares between February 4, 2020 to March 17, 2020. Investors had until December 7, 2020 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email to join the case. It is alleged in the complaint that Royal Caribbean throughout the Class Period made materially misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about a decrease in its bookings outside China, as well as its faulty procedures and policies to prevent the circulation of COVID-19 on its cruise ships. Specifically, in regard to global bookings, Royal Caribbean: (1) misled investors to believe that any issues related to COVID-19 were relatively insignificant; (2) falsely assured investors that bookings outside China were strong and showed no signs of a slowdown; and (3) failed to disclose that material declines in bookings globally due to customer concerns over COVID-19 were being experienced by Royal Caribbean. Additionally, in regard to safety procedures, Royal Caribbean: (1) falsely assured investors that rigorous safety protocols were implemented; (2) stated such protocols were ultimately expected to contain the spread of COVID-19; and (3) failed to disclose that its ships were following protocols that were grossly inadequate and that would foster the spread of COVID-19, posing a substantial risk to crews and passengers. The lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages, when the true details entered the market. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. Those wishing to serve as lead plaintiff, had until December 7, 2020, to move the Court for appointment. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ROYAL CREDIT: Schindler Seeks Initial Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as June Schindler v. Royal Credit Union, Case No. 3:20-cv-00007-jdp (W.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily approving the parties' Settlement; 2. appointing himself as the class representative; 3. appointing his counsel as class counsel; 4. setting a date for a final approval hearing; 5. appointing First Class Inc. as the claims administrator. The Class Settlement provides for these terms: -- The total amount which Defendant agrees to pay through the settlement is $490,000. Of that amount, Defendant agrees to pay a total amount for class administration and the settlement class a Settlement Fund of $321,683, to be divided among those persons who do not timely request exclusion. -- The parties estimate that from the total Settlement Fund -- approximately $35,000 will be used for class administration, including mailing of the notices and checks, and maintenance of a toll-free phone number. -- The third-party administrator will distribute checks following the Court’s entry of a final order for judgment. -- Distribution checks to the Class will expire after 90 days post-issuance, and any undistributed funds represented by any uncashed checks will be distributed as a cy pres distribution to the Consumer Law Clinic of the University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison, Wisconsin. -- Separate from the class settlement fund, the Plaintiff requests an award of $5,000 as statutory damage and a class representative incentive fee, and the Plaintiff's counsel seeks $163,317 in attorneys' fees and costs (1/3rd of the total common fund settlement). -- In exchange for the consideration, the Plaintiff and the Class Members will release all claims that were raised or could have been raised in this suit as against the Defendant. The Plaintiff commenced this case as an individual action in Wisconsin state court on December 18, 2019, alleging that Royal Credit Union (RCU) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Wisconsin Privacy Statute, by obtaining her credit information without a "permissible purpose". The Defendant removed the matter to the Federal District Court, and the Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims on behalf of a putative class. RCU filed an Answer as its responsive pleading, and discovery commenced. Following exchange of written discovery and document productions, the parties reached a class-wide settlement in a court-supervised conference, the complaint says. RCU provides financial solutions such as saving and checking accounts, loans, investment, credit and debit cards, insurance, ATMs, online banking, and other related services. The Union serves communities in the State of Wisconsin. A copy of the unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement dated Dec. 8, 2020, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/382CNq9 at no extra charge.[CC] Counsel for the Plaintiff and the Class, are: Eric L. Crandall, Esq. CRANDALL LAW OFFICE S.C. 421 West Second Street P.O. Box 27 New Richmond, WI 54017 Telephone: (715) 243-9996 Facsimile: (715) 246-3793 E-mail: wisconsinconsumerlaw@frontier.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com RUGS.COM LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rugs.com, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Rugs.com, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-05908 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rugs.com -- https://rugs.com/ -- is a rug retailer. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jshalom@jonathanshalomlaw.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Wesley Suit Over Defective Gas Ranges ---------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY WESLEY, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-18629 (D.N.J., Dec. 9, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act due to undisclosed defect in its Samsung gas and electric ranges that include a temperature sensor bearing model number DG32-00002B. According to the complaint, the latent defect in the oven temperature sensor causes failures in the Class ranges' control boards. When the control boards fail, the Class ranges' oven and burner temperatures deviate from the user-selected temperature settings. The Class ranges' ovens and burners are either not hot enough or far too hot, posing a safety risk. The Defendant has long been aware of the said defect. Due to the undisclosed defect, the Plaintiff and Class members were deprived of the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the Class ranges. The Plaintiff accordingly seeks relief both for herself and for other owners of the Class ranges. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. manufactures electronic products. The Company offers televisions, digital cameras, cell phones, storage devices, home appliances, security systems, smartwatches, and computer products. Samsung Electronics America serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 831-4701 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: apark@bm.net - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Jordan Elias, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com jelias@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com SANOFI US: Mustakis Files Fraud Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sanofi US. The case is styled as Jimmy Mustakis, individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sanofi US, Case No. 2:20-cv-05895 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020). The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending. Sanofi -- https://www.sanofi.us/ -- is a French multinational pharmaceutical company headquartered in Paris, France, as of 2013 the world's fifth-largest by prescription sales. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com SCREENING REPORTS: Wiley Files Suit in Iowa Over FCRA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Screening Reports, Inc. The case is captioned as Heidi Wiley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Screening Reports, Inc., also known as: BetterNOI, LLC also known as: BetterNOI, Case No. 4:20-cv-00363-JAJ-SBJ (S.D. Iowa., Nov. 24, 2020). The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and is assigned to Chief Judge John A. Jarvey. Screening Reports, Inc. provides rental background reporting for multi-unit housing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Z. Marks, Esq. MARKS LAW FIRM 4225 University Avenue Des Moines, IA 50311 Telephone: (515) 276-7211 Facsimile: (515) 276-6280 E-mail: office@markslawdm.com - and - Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com SPARK ENERGY: Bank Appeals Judgment in TCPA Suit to 2nd Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Todd C. Bank filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated September 24, 2020 and November 23, 2020, and Judgment dated November 24, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled TODD C. BANK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SPARK ENERGY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 19-cv-4478, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The lawsuit alleges Defendant's violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the New York General Business Law by initiating, to residential telephones lines and to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, thousands of telephone calls using a prerecorded voice to deliver a message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of energy-discount services it provided. The Plaintiff is seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order and Judgment, granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss in its entirety, but without prejudice, denying Plaintiff's leave to file the Proposed Amended Complaint and denying Defendant's motion to strike, thus entering the Judgment in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is captioned as Bank v. Spark Energy, LLC, Case No. 20-4071, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, December 7, 2020. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Todd C. Bank, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Todd C. Bank, Esq. TODD C. BANK, ATTORNEY AT LAW 119-40 Union Turnpike Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 520-7125 E-mail: tbank@toddbanklaw.com Defendant-Appellee Spark Energy, LLC is represented by: Michelle D. Pector, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1000 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 890-5455 E-mail: michelle.pector@morganlewis.com - and - Regina Schaffer-Goldman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6689 E-mail: regina.schaffer-goldman@morganlewis.com SPICEOLOGY INC: Paguada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spiceology, Inc. The case is styled as Dilenia Paguada, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Spiceology, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10243 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 4, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Spiceology -- https://spiceology.com/ -- is a privately owned spice company in America. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com STILLWATER DESIGNS: Sanchez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stillwater Designs and Audio, Inc. The case is styled as Christian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Stillwater Designs and Audio, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-10182 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 3, 2020). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Stillwater Designs And Audio, Inc., doing business as Kicker -- https://www.kicker.com/ -- provides consumer electronics. The Company's line of business includes the manufacturing of electronic audio and video equipment for home entertainment. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal SUNOCO INC: Seeks Tenth Circuit Review in Cline Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Defendants SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) and SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated December 9, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. SUNOCO, INC. (R&M), and, SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS, L.P., Case No. 6:17-CV-00313-JAG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma, Muskogee. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Cline owns a royalty interest in one or more oil wells in Oklahoma. Sunoco, Inc. (R&M), and Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals, L.P. ("Sunoco"), purchase and resell oil from Cline's wells. Oklahoma law requires Sunoco to pay proceeds from the oil to Mr. Cline. If Sunoco pays the proceeds late, it must pay Cline interest on the payment at a rate set forth in Oklahoma's Production Revenue Standards Act. Mr. Cline has sued Sunoco for paying his production proceeds late without paying the required interest. On Oct. 3, 2019, the Court granted Mr. Cline's motion to maintain a class action on behalf of other owners whom Sunoco paid late and did not pay interest. On Oct. 8, 2019, Sunoco filed a motion to stay the case pending its appeal of the District Court's class certification ruling to the Tenth Circuit. On Oct. 17, 2019, Sunoco filed its appeal. The Defendants are seeking an appeal to review the Court's Order after Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. denied both their motion for new trial and motion to alter order/judgment. The appellate case is captioned as Cline, et al v. Sunoco (R&M), Case No. 20-7072, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, December 9, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Docketing statement, transcript order form and notice of appearance are due on December 23, 2020 for Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M); and -- Notice of appearance is due on December 23, 2020 for Perry Cline.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee PERRY CLINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq. Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Andrew G. Pate, Esq. James Edward Warner, III, Esq. NIX PATTERSON 3600 North Capital of Texas Highway Suite 350B, Building B Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (903) 645-7333 E-mail: jangelovich@npraustin.com bbeckworth@nixlaw.com dpate@nixlaw.com - and - Robert N. Barnes, Esq. Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq. BARNES & LEWIS 128 West Hefner Road Oklahoma City, OK 73114 Telephone: (405) 843-0363 E-mail: rbarnes@barneslewis.com plewis@barneslewis.com - and - Michael Burrage, Esq. WHITTEN BURRAGE 512 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 E-mail: mburrage@whittenburragelaw.com - and - Paula Jantzen, Esq. Jason A. Ryan, Esq. Patrick M. Ryan, Esq. RYAN WHALEY COLDIRON JANTZEN PETERS & WEBBER 400 North Walnut Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 239-6040 E-mail: pjantzen@ryanwhaley.com jryan@ryanwhaley.com pryan@ryanwhaley.com - and - Emily Nash Kitch, Esq. WIGGINS SEWELL & OGLETREE 210 Park Avenue, Suite 3100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 232-1211 - and - Lawrence R. Murphy, Jr., Esq. SMOLEN LAW 611 South Detroit Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone: (918) 777-4529 E-mail: lmurphy@richardsconnor.com - and - Russell S. Post, Esq. BECK REDDEN 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 E-mail: rpost@beckredden.com Defendants-Appellants SUNOCO PARTNERS MARKETING & TERMINALS L.P. and SUNOCO, INC. (R&M) are represented by: Mark D. Christiansen, Esq. EDINGER LEONARD & BLAKLEY 6301 North Western Avenue, Suite 250 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 702-9900 E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com - and - Matthew Dekovich, Esq. Daniel Mead McClure, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone: (713) 651-5473 E-mail: matt.dekovich@nortonrosefulbright.com dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Jonathan S. Franklin, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT 799 9th Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20001-4501 Telephone: (202) 662-0200 E-mail: jonathan.franklin@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Michael A. Heidler, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746-7568 Telephone: (512) 542-8400 E-mail: mheidler@velaw.com - and - Emma Perry, Esq. Robert D. Woods, Esq. R. Paul Yetter, Esq. YETTER COLEMAN 811 Main Street, Suite 4100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 632-8000 E-mail: eperry@yettercoleman.com rwoods@yettercoleman.com pyetter@yettercoleman.com - and - Shannon Wells Stevenson, Esq. DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS 1550 Seventeenth Street, Suite 500 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 892-7533 E-mail: shannon.stevenson@dgslaw.com - and - Marie R. Yeates, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Telephone: (713) 758-2222 E-mail: myeates@velaw.com SUPER BREAD: Fuentes' Class Status Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIONICIA FUENTES, et al., v. SUPER BREAD II CORP., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06736-ES-CLW (D.N.J., Filed April 13, 2018), the Hon. Judge Esther Salas entered an order: 1. granting, in part, and denying, in part, the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23; 2. granting Fuentes' motion for conditional certification of collective action under the FLSA; 3. denying without prejudice Fuentes' motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, without prejudice; 4. directing Fuentes, within 7 days of the entry of this Order, to file a letter notifying the Court whether she intends to renew her motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, failure to file such letter may result in denial with prejudice; 5. directing Fuentes, to the extent that she intends to renew her motion for class certification, to file such motion within 30 days of the entry of this Order, failure to file such renewed motion curing the deficiencies identified in the Court's accompanying Opinion may result in denial with prejudice; 6. directing the parties, to the extent that Fuentes does not intend to renew her motion for class certification, to meet and confer and submit, within 30 days of the entry of this Order, a FLSA notice form that is fair, accurate, and consistent with the Court's analysis in the accompanying Opinion; and 7. denying Defendants' request to file a sur-reply in opposition to Fuentes's motion. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 9, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2WbWJBi at no extra charge.[CC] TEMPOE LLC: Vega Sues Over Unlawful Rental Charges of Appliances ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE C. VEGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TEMPOE, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 8:20-cv-02322 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 9, 2020) arises from the Defendant's violations of the Karnette Rental Purchase Act, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit is a consumer class action against the Defendant which preys on low-income Californians by charging exorbitant and unlawful prices to customers who sign up for long-term rentals of household appliances, furniture, or other consumer goods, or who purchase products that the customer had previously been renting. The Plaintiff seeks a public injunction and other equitable relief, including restitution, invalidation of rental-purchase agreements, an accounting, and a declaratory judgment that Defendant's conduct violated California law, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. Ms. Vega is an individual, residing in Orange County, California who entered into a Consumer Lease Agreement with Tempoe for the purchase of General Electric Kenmore Electric Washer and Dryer, which each constitute an "appliance" within the meaning of Section 812.622(h). Tempoe, LLC is a national retail "lease-to-own" consumer rental company in the United States and maintains locations throughout the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2633 E. Indian School Rd., Suite 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OFTODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Ste 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com TENNESSEE: TN NAACP Balks at Felons' Voting Rights Restoration Law ------------------------------------------------------------------ TENNESSEE CONFERENCE of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of COLORED PEOPLE, on behalf of itself and its members, and LAMAR PERRY, CURTIS GRAY Jr., JOHN WEARE, BENJAMIN TOURNIER, and AMANDA LEE MARTIN, for themselves and those similarly situated v. WILLIAM LEE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Tennessee, TONY C. PARKER, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Correction of the State of Tennessee, MARK GOINS, in his official capacity as Coordinator of Elections for the State of Tennessee, TRE HARGETT, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Tennessee, and MELISSA HARRELL in her official capacity as Rutherford County Clerk of Circuit Court, Case No. 3:20-cv-01039 (M.D. Tenn., Dec. 3, 2020) challenges the state of Tennessee's unequal, inaccessible, opaque, and error-ridden implementation of the statutes granting restoration of voting rights to citizens who lost the right to vote because of a felony conviction, pursuant to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Twenty-Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the complaint, the primary pathway to voting rights restoration in Tennessee is a Certificate of Restoration of Voting Rights (COR). Tennessee law makes clear that an individual who meets certain criteria -- including completion of sentence and certain legal financial obligations -- has a statutory right to a COR. The legislature intended the COR system to streamline and make uniform and objective the voting rights restoration process, which had previously primarily depended on judicial discretion. The legislature assigned Defendants responsibility for managing the COR process. But due to Defendants' failure to administer the law properly, the process is far from streamlined, uniform, or objective. It is opaque, decentralized, inaccurate, and inaccessible. The complaint asserts that the lack of guardrails and uniform policies creates a high risk of erroneous deprivation of the statutory right to COR. Indeed, erroneous deprivation of CORs occurs regularly. The state has created a statutory right to a COR for individuals who meet certain criteria and who request a COR from a designated official, but the Defendants collectively erroneously deprive individual Plaintiffs and those similarly situated of those CORs, and the right to vote a COR restores, without due process. Furthermore, elements of Tennessee's voter registration process violate the National Voter Registration Act and create additional, unnecessary barriers to the franchise for individuals with felony convictions even when they never lost the right to vote or have already had their voting rights restored, the suit says. The Tennessee State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (TN NAACP) is a nonpartisan, multi-racial, non-profit membership organization headquartered in Jackson, Tennessee and is the state's chapter of the largest and most pre-eminent civil rights organization in the country. The TN NAACP was founded in 1946 to serve as the Tennessee arm of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Its mission is to eliminate race-based discrimination through securing political, educational, social, and economic equality rights and ensuring the health and well-being of all persons. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Charles K. Grant, Esq. Denmark J. Grant, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 726-5600 Facsimile: (615) 726-0464 E-mail: cgrant@bakerdonelson.com dgrant@bakerdonelson.com - and - Danielle Lang, Esq. Mark P. Gaber, Esq. Aseem Mulji, Esq. CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1101 14th St. NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736-2200 E-mail: Dlang@campaignlegal.org Mgaber@campaignlegal.org Amulji@campaignlegal.org - and - Keeda Haynes, Esq. FREE HEARTS 2013 25th Ave N Nashville, TN 37208 Telephone: (615) 479-5530 E-mail: keeda@freeheartsorg.com - and - Phil Telfeyan, Esq. Natasha Baker, Esq. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW 400 7th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (202) 505-2058 E-mail: ptelfeyan@equaljusticeunderlaw.org nbaker@equaljusticeunderlaw.org TOOTSIE ROLL: Maisel Appeals Order in Fraud Suit to Ninth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Elizabeth Maisel, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELIZABETH MAISEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-05204-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The complaint concerns Tootsie Roll's sale of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies in "theater boxes." The Plaintiff asserts that Tootsie Roll's packaging of these products is "deceptive," as the packaging at issue allegedly contains "an unlawful amount of empty space or slack fill." On behalf of a putative class of consumers, who purchased Junior Mints and/or Sugar Babies in theater boxes in California from May 29, 2016, to May 2, 2018, the Plaintiff asserts violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's False Advertising Law, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and claims of unjust enrichment, common law fraud, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiffs are seeking an appeal to review the District Court's Order, denying Maisel's motion to remand. The Defendant removed this action under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the sole point of contention in the motion to remand is whether the Act's 5 million dollar amount-in-controversy requirement is met. The Court also denies Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees because the Court finds that Defendant has a good faith basis for removal under the Class Action Fairness Act. The appellate case is captioned as Elizabeth Maisel, et al v. Tootsie Roll Industries, LLC, Case No. 20-17377, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, December 7, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case: -- Appellants Elizabeth Maisel and Matthew Thomas Theriault Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 14, 2020; -- Appellants Elizabeth Maisel and Matthew Thomas Theriault opening brief is due on February 8, 2021; -- Appellee Tootsie Roll Industries, LLC answering brief is due on March 8, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants ELIZABETH MAISEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MATTHEW THOMAS THERIAULT are represented by: Ryan Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 804 Los Angeles, CA 90069 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com mtheriault@clarksonlawfirm.com Defendant-Appellee TOOTSIE ROLL INDUSTRIES, LLC is represented by: David M. Jolley, Esq. DONAHUE FITZGERALD LLP 1999 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 451-3300 E-mail: djolley@donahue.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Driver Classification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Dailey, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that Uber Technologies Inc. was hit with a proposed class action in federal court alleging it misclassified drivers in New York as independent contractors when they're actually employees under state labor law. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Sancak Davarci, an Uber driver based in New York, seeking to represent other similarly situated workers. The drivers are employees under New York law and their misclassification as contractors has unlawfully deprived them of minimum and overtime wages, the complaint says. [GN] UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Al Otro Asylum Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October 30, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled AL OTRO LADO, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 14, 2020, Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied the Defendants' request to claw back certain documents. On Jan. 14, 2020, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all non-citizens who seek or will seek to access the U.S. asylum process by presenting themselves at a Class A port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border, and were or will be denied access to the U.S. asylum process by or at the instruction of U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials on or after Jan. 1, 2016. The Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion was supported by 67 declarations of pseudonymous asylum-seekers, all of whom are putative class members. The Defendants are now seeking an appeal to review the court's order granting Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of the preliminary injunction, granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion to seal, and denying as moot Plaintiffs' ex parte motion for oral argument. The appellate case is captioned as Al Otro Lado, et al. v. Chad Wolf, et al., Case No. 20-56287, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 4, 2020. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees AL OTRO LADO, a California corporation, ABIGAIL DOE, BEATRICE DOE, CAROLINA DOE, DINORA DOE, INGRID DOE, JOSE DOE, URSULA DOE, VICTORIA DOE, BIANCA DOE, JUAN DOE, ROBERTO DOE, CESAR DOE, MARIA DOE and EMILIANA DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Baher Azmy, Esq. CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 666 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10012 - and - Rebecca M. Cassler, Esq. Sarah Rich, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 150 E. Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 340 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 521-6700 - and - Melissa E. Crow, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1101 17th Street, NW, Suite 705 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 355-4471 E-mail: melissa@immjustice.com - and - Matthew Fenn, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606-4637 Telephone: (312) 701-7040 E-mail: mfenn@mayerbrown.com - and - Sydney R. Fields, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 506-2686 E-mail: sfields@mayerbrown.com - and - Ori Lev, Esq. Stephen M. Medlock, Esq. Michelle N. Webster, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3270 E-mail: olev@mayerbrown.com smedlock@mayerbrown.com mwebster@mayerbrown.com - and - Matthew H. Marmolejo, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 621-9483 E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com - and - Karolina Joanna Walters, Esq. AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL 1331 "G" Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 507-7520 Appellant EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW is represented by: Alexander Halaska, Esq. Katherine Shinners, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 307-8704 E-mail: alexander.j.halaska@usdoj.gov katherine.j.shinners@usdoj.gov Defendants-Appellants CHAD F. WOLF, Acting Secretary, US Department of Homeland Security; MARK A. MORGAN, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and WILLIAM A. FERRARA, Executive Assistant Commissioner of CBPs Office of Field Operations are represented by: Alexander Halaska, Esq. Katherine Shinners, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 307-8704 E-mail: alexander.j.halaska@usdoj.gov katherine.j.shinners@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Ninth Cir. Appeal Filed in Galvez Immigrant Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Lee Francis Cissna, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al., filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated October 5, 2020, entered in the lawsuit entitled Leobardo Moreno Galvez, et al. v. Lee Cissna, et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00321-RSL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. The Plaintiffs represent a class of young immigrants who were determined by the courts of the State of Washington to have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both of their parents. They sought classification as Special Immigrant Juveniles as a pathway to lawful permanent residency in the United States. On July 17, 2019, the Court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants - the United States Department of Homeland Security, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the individuals in charge of DHS and USCIS, and the director of the National Benefits Center - from enforcing a 2018 change in policy that, Plaintiffs argued, unlawfully denied them SIJ status. The Court also required USCIS to promptly adjudicate or readjudicate all class members' SIJ petitions. The Plaintiffs sought summary judgment on their various challenges to USCIS' actions and the entry of an injunction permanently enjoining the agency from unreasonably delaying the adjudication of SIJ petitions in the State of Washington. Defendants sought judgment in their favor, arguing that the matter was moot and/or that the 2018 policy was lawful and lawfully implemented. Defendants also argue that they were not obligated to comply with the statutory deadline for adjudicating SIJ petitions and that plaintiffs have failed to show that a permanent injunction was warranted. The Defendants are now appealing to review an order from the Court granting Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction on October 5, 2020. The appellate case is captioned as Leobardo Moreno Galvez, et al. v. Lee Cissna, et al., Case No. 20-36052, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Dec. 4, 2020. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case: -- Appellants Lee Francis Cissna, Robert Cowan, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Mediation Questionnaire is due on December 11, 2020; -- Appellants Lee Francis Cissna, Robert Cowan, Kirstjen Nielsen, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services opening brief is due on February 2, 2021; -- Appellees Leobardo Moreno Galvez, Angel de Jesus Munoz Olivera and Jose Luis Vicente Ramos answering brief is due on March 4, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees LEOBARDO MORENO GALVEZ, JOSE LUIS VICENTE RAMOS, and ANGEL DE JESUS MUNOZ OLIVERA, on behalf of themselves as individuals and others similarly situated, are represented by: Matt Adams, Esq. Aaron Korthuis, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org - and - Meghan E. Casey, Esq. Tim Henry Warden-Hertz, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 1119 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1400 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (206) 957-8651 E-mail: meghan@nwirp.org tim@nwirp.org Defendants-Appellants LEE FRANCIS CISSNA, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security; ROBERT COWAN, Director, National Benefits Center; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; and UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, are represented by: Katelyn Masetta-Alvarez, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 5th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-0120 - and - Matt Waldrop, Esq. DOJ-OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY 700 Stewart Street Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 553-7970 E-mail: james.waldrop@usdoj.gov UNITED STATES: Serrano Files Certiorari Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Gerardo Serrano filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled GERARDO SERRANO, Petitioner, v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, ET AL., Respondents, Case No. 20-768. Response is due on January 4, 2021. Plaintiff Serrano files this petition to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dated September 16, 2020, in the case titled GERARDO SERRANO, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE 1-X; JUAN ESPINOZA; KEVIN MCALEENAN, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 18-50977. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss and denying as moot Serrano's motion to certify the class. The question presented is: When the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, does due process require a prompt post-seizure hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture trial? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Serrano filed this suit against the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and related parties, alleging constitutional violations after his truck and its contents were seized at the United States-Mexico border. Serrano sought the return of his property pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), as well as damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging violations of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Additionally, Serrano asserted a purported class-wide due process claim against the United States, CBP, and the CBP Commissioner, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, directing CBP to provide prompt post-seizure hearings when seizing vehicles for civil forfeiture.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner GERARDO SERRANO is represented by: Robert Everett Johnson, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 16781 Chagrin Blvd. #256 Shaker Heights, OH 44120 Telephone: (703) 682-9320 Facsimile: (703) 682-9321 E-mail: rjohnson@ij.org Defendants-Appellees-Respondents U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., are represented by: Jeffrey B. Wall, Esq. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ordered to Reprocess Thousands of Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Christopher Snowbeck, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a federal judge has ordered UnitedHealth Group to reprocess tens of thousands of claims from behavioral health patients to remedy its past usage of overly restrictive coverage guidelines -- a "fundamentally flawed" approach, the judge ruled last year, that was "tainted" by the health insurer's financial interests. The order on Nov. 3 came more than a year after Judge Joseph Spero of the U.S. District Court of Northern California ruled that UnitedHealth's behavioral health division used internal guidelines for denying claims that strayed from the terms of patients' health plans. The division used the guidelines "to protect its bottom line," Spero wrote in his order. United Behavioral Health (UBH) "lied to state regulators" to conceal misconduct, the judge wrote, and executives responsible for the guidelines "deliberately attempted to mislead the court at trial in this matter." "The harm that UBH caused by applying overly restrictive guidelines to make coverage determinations goes beyond the money spent by class members who could afford to obtain the treatment that UBH refused to cover," Spero wrote. "Rather, it was the unfair adjudication of claims that was experienced by all of the class members (and for some deprived them of much-needed treatment that should have been covered by their health plans) . . .," he added. "A fair determination of class members' claims will also allow them to correct the 'record' so that they can, if appropriate, pursue other remedies." A spokesman for Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group said the company was reviewing the order and considering options including an appeal. "Over the last several years, we have taken concrete steps to improve access to quality care by enhancing coverage through clinician-developed evidence-based guidelines, expanding our network of providers and providing new ways for people to quickly access care," the company said in a statement. "We are focused on ensuring our members get the quality, compassionate care they need, and will continue working closely with people across the behavioral health community on this important issue." Attorneys said that more than 50,000 patients are in the class of plaintiffs whose claims for residential or outpatient treatment were denied as UBH used the guidelines. Plaintiffs allege UBH denied them or their dependents coverage for residential or outpatient treatments between 2011 and 2016. The class-action lawsuit includes 11 named plaintiffs including DeeDee Tillitt of Edina, whose 21-year-old son died of a drug overdose a few months after UBH said it would no longer pay for residential treatment of his drug addiction. The order issued on Nov. 3 requires the UnitedHealth Group subsidiary to use better guidelines for making coverage decisions and train company employees on their use. The company also must reprocess an estimated 67,000 claims for coverage that previously were denied. There's no guarantee that UBH will now cover the claims, but "we're confident that a lot of people are going to end up getting a different decision this time around," said Caroline Reynolds, a plaintiffs attorney with the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP. The court will appoint a special master to oversee the reprocessing of claims, which should take about one year to complete, Reynolds said. In his 2019 ruling, Spero found that UBH's guidelines made it harder for patients to get coverage. The company placed excessive emphasis on addressing acute symptoms, he found, rather than treating underlying conditions. The judge also faulted the guidelines for not addressing effective treatment of co-occurring conditions and breaking with standards of care in pushing patients to lower levels of care. The unique needs of children and adolescents also weren't properly addressed, Spero ruled. "The emphasis on cost-cutting that was embedded in UBH's guideline development process actually tainted the process, causing UBH to make decisions about guidelines based as much or more on its own bottom line as on the interests of the plan members, to whom it owes a fiduciary duty," the judge wrote in 2019. [GN] VASTA PLATFORM: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Vasta Platform, Ltd. ("Vasta" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VSTA) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Vasta 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/vasta-platform-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. In July 2020, Vasta conducted its initial public offering ("IPO"), selling more than 18.5 million Class A common shares at $19.00 per share. Then, on August 20, 2020, the Company announced its financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2020. Vasta announced a net loss of 54.9 million reais and revenue of 120.23 million reais, representing a revenue decline of 12.9% from the prior year period. Vasta also disclosed that "[t]he different seasonality in revenue recognition seen in 2020 on account of a greater concentration of invoices at the start of the commercial cycle (4Q and 1Q) ended up having a negative impact on the basis of comparison against the same period last year." The Company further stated that EBITDA was impacted by "the extraordinary effects seen in the period, such as the different seasonality of revenue together with the impact of Covid-19 on the operation, as well as the inventory adjustment and higher marketing expenses." On this news, the Company's share price fell $1.63, or nearly 9%, to close at $16.88 per share on August 21, 2020, representing an 11.16% decline from the IPO price. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Vasta should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] VOLVO CAR: Laurens' Bid for Class Certification Denied ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIER LAURENS and KHADIJA LAURENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VOLVO CAR USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-08798-JMV-CLW (D.N.J., Filed May 4, 2018), the Hon. Judge John Michael Vazquez entered an order: 1. denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; 2. denying without prejudice the Defendant's motion to strike Lawson's certification; and 3. granting the Defendant's motion for leave to file a sur- reply. The opinion denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify a class and the Defendant's motion to strike has been filed under seal because portions of the underlying motions were considered classified. By December 15, 2020, the parties are directed to inform the Court in writing as to which portions, if any, of the opinion should remain under seal and the legal basis for doing so. If the Court does not receive any such submission, then the opinion will be unsealed on December 16, Judge Vazquez says. Volvo Cars manufactures, markets, and sells automobiles. The Company offers wholesale distribution of new and used passenger automobiles, trucks, trailers, and components. A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 8, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3a2afQ5 at no extra charge.[CC] WALMART INC: Gets Leave to File Amended Answer to Fortney FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID FORTNEY, et al., Plaintiffs v. WALMART INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:19-cv-04209 (S.D. Ohio), Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. Plaintiffs Fortney and Eli Triplett are former Walmart Auto Care Center employees. They filed the nationwide FLSA collective action and Rule 23 Ohio class action against Defendant Walmart on Sept. 21, 2019. Broadly speaking, the Plaintiffs allege that Walmart required them to respond to work communications during unpaid meal breaks and failed to compensate them accordingly. Walmart moved to amend its Answer on Oct. 5, 2020, during the first-tier notice phase of conditional certification. It seeks to add an additional affirmative defense that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims of any out-of-state opt-in Plaintiffs. It relies on the Supreme Court's decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., which held, in a mass tort product-liability action, that it did not have personal jurisdiction over the nonresidents' claims. The Plaintiffs say Walmart waived that defense by failing to assert it in its original Answer. In support of amendment, Walmart emphasizes the early posture of the case. Specifically, that the Court has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Certification, and thus, has not determined whether the non-Ohio opt-in Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed with their claims. Still, the Plaintiffs respond that Walmart's personal jurisdiction defense comes too late. The Plaintiffs aver that Walmart failed to raise that defense in its original Answer. What is more, say the Plaintiffs, Walmart submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court by actively engaging in the case. For legal support, the Plaintiffs rely heavily on the Court's decision on Charvat v. Nat'l Holdings Corp., No. 2:14-CV-2205, 2018 WL 6732887, at *3 (S.D. Ohio July 26, 2018), in which the Court concluded that the Defendant in a Rule 23 class action waived its personal jurisdiction defense by failing to raise it earlier. The Court denied the defendant's request to amend its answer as a result. Judge Jolson opines that unlike the defendant in Charvat, Walmart did not sit on its personal jurisdiction defense for years after receiving notice of potential non-forum opt-in class members. Rather, it sought leave to amend only months after the Plaintiffs asked the Court to certify a collective class of over a dozen non-forum opt-in Plaintiffs. Given that timeline, it would be unjust to say Walmart waived its defense. Indeed, the Court has not yet ruled on whether these non-forum opt-in Plaintiffs may proceed against Walmart. In other words, Judge Jolson says, Walmart is raising a personal jurisdiction defense against individuals who are not yet Plaintiffs in the case. Consequently, Walmart did not waive its personal jurisdiction defense, and the interests of justice weigh in favor of granting Walmart leave to amend. For these reasons, Jude Jolson granted the Defendant's Motion. The Clerk will file Document Number 40-1 as the Amended Answer in the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 8, 2020 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y2ujhlxv from Leagle.com. WELLS FARGO: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) securities between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until December 29, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its first quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company announced a $4 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies, including $940 million in net charge-offs on loans and debt securities and a $3.1 billion reserve build. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.54, or 14%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.89 per share on April 16, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report with the SEC for first quarter 2020, in which it stated that Wells Fargo's collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") investments fell 9% and that the Company suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO investments during the quarter. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.74, or 6%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020. On June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer, John Shrewsberry, presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US Financials Conference, during which he stated that the second quarter reserve build would be even "bigger than the first quarter" due to continued deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.84, or 18%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its second quarter 2020 financial results in a press release, disclosing a $9.5 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close at $24.25 per share on July 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced a $769 million provision expense for third quarter 2020, but the Company's CFO stated that further deterioration of the credit portfolio had been forestalled due to short-term customer accommodations provided since the start of the pandemic. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.49, or 6%, to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 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) while issuing billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans, the Company consistently failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards and due diligence guidelines, including inflating the net income and future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (2) a materially higher proportion of its commercial loans were to customers of poor credit quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than disclosed to investors; (3) the Company had failed to timely write down commercial loans, CLOs and CMBS on its books that had suffered impairments; (4) the Company had materially understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its commercial portfolios; (5) the Company had systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS; (6) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment securities held by the Company were of lower credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors; (7) as a result of the above, the Company's statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans, its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading; and (8) as a result of the above, the Company was exposed to severe undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the commercial credit markets; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Wells Fargo securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 29, 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 purchased Wells Fargo securities, have information or 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 Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Gainey McKenna Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (: WFC) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Wells Fargo between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Wells Fargo investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Wells Fargo's business and operations. Defendants reassured investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of exceptional credit quality and the product of robust, industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and procedures. In truth, however, Wells Fargo fueled its rapid commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a heightened risk of default. Wells Fargo systematically concealed these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk controls. Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and widely distributing these securitized products throughout the financial system. On April 14, 2020, in connection with the release of its first quarter 2020 financial results, Wells Fargo revealed it was taking a massive $4 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock fell 14% over three trading days. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its second quarter 2020 results, which disclosed that the Company had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or ($0.66) per share, and was taking a $9.5 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock fell 5% to $24.25 per share. Then, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its third quarter 2020 results, with the Company announcing that it had recognized another provision expense of $769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased $2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter. The price of Wells Fargo stock fell 6% on this news to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Wells Fargo during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the December 29, 2020 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Glancy Prongay Reminds of Dec. 29 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, on Nov. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Wells Fargo & Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") (NYSE: WFC) common stock between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wells Fargo investors have until December 29, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Wells Fargo 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/wells-fargo-and-company/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its first quarter 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company announced a $4 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies, including $940 million in net charge-offs on loans and debt securities and a $3.1 billion reserve build. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.54, or 14%, over three consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.89 per share on April 16, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Wells Fargo filed its quarterly report with the SEC for first quarter 2020, in which it stated that Wells Fargo's collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") investments fell 9% and that the Company suffered $1.7 billion in unrealized losses on its CLO investments during the quarter. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.74, or 6%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $25.61 per share on May 6, 2020. On June 10, 2020, Wells Fargo's Chief Financial Officer, John Shrewsberry, presented at the Morgan Stanley Virtual US Financials Conference, during which he stated that the second quarter reserve build would be even "bigger than the first quarter" due to continued deterioration in the Company's credit portfolio. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.84, or 18%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $26.79 per share on June 11, 2020. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced its second quarter 2020 financial results in a press release, disclosing a $9.5 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.16, or 5%, to close at $24.25 per share on July 14, 2020. On October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo announced a $769 million provision expense for third quarter 2020, but the Company's CFO stated that further deterioration of the credit portfolio had been forestalled due to short-term customer accommodations provided since the start of the pandemic. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.49, or 6%, to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 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) Wells Fargo had systematically failed to follow appropriate underwriting standards and due diligence guidelines in issuing billions of dollars' worth of commercial loans, including by inflating the net income and future expected cash flows of its commercial clients to justify issuing excessive loan amounts; (2) a materially higher proportion of Wells Fargo's commercial loans were to customers of poor credit quality and/or at a substantially higher risk of default than disclosed to investors; (3) Wells Fargo had failed to timely write down commercial loans, CLOs and CMBS on its books that had suffered impairments; (4) Wells Fargo had materially understated the reserves needed for expected credit losses in its commercial portfolios; (5) Wells Fargo had systematically misrepresented the credit quality and likelihood of default of the loans it packaged and securitized into CLOs and CMBS, including by artificially inflating the net income and expected cash flows of its commercial clients in loan and securitization documentation; (6) the CLO and CMBS-related loans issued and investment securities held by Wells Fargo were of lower credit quality and worth far less than represented to investors; (7) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements regarding the credit quality of its commercial loans, its underwriting and due diligence practices, and the value of its CLO and CMBS books were materially false and misleading; and (8) as a result of the foregoing, the Company was exposed to severe undisclosed risks of financial, reputational and legal harm, in particular in the event of significant and sustained stress in the commercial credit markets. If you purchased Wells Fargo common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than December 29, 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. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] WELLS FARGO: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman announced that it filed a class action seeking to represent purchasers of Wells Fargo & Company (NYSE:NYSE:WFC) common stock during the period between October 13, 2017 and October 13, 2020 (the "Class Period"). This action was filed in the Northern District of California and is captioned Mullen v. Wells Fargo & Company, No. 20-cv-7674. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Wells Fargo common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss the Wells Fargo class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, [url="]Brian+E.+Cochran[/url] of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a copy of the complaint as filed at [url="]https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rgrdlaw.com%2Fcases-wfc-class-action-lawsuit.html[/url]. The Wells Fargo class action lawsuit charges Wells Fargo and certain of its current and former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Wells Fargo is a global financial services company that provides banking, investment and mortgage products and services, as well as other consumer and commercial financial services. Since 2009, Wells Fargo has dramatically ramped up its commercial lending activities and has become a leading market participant in the securitization of commercial loans, originating and distributing as well as investing in billions of dollars' worth of collateralized loan obligations ("CLOs") and commercial mortgage backed securities ("CMBS") backed by corporate debt. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding Wells Fargo's business and operations. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants reassured investors that Wells Fargo's commercial credit portfolios were of exceptional credit quality and the product of robust, industry-leading underwriting and due diligence policies and procedures. In truth, however, Wells Fargo fueled its rapid commercial loan growth by lending to businesses that posed a heightened risk of default. Wells Fargo systematically concealed these credit risks by artificially inflating the incomes generated by borrowing businesses, relaxing or failing to follow applicable underwriting procedures, and circumventing applicable risk controls. Wells Fargo exacerbated the threat posed by its defective commercial debt by packaging the loans into CLOs and CMBS and widely distributing these securitized products throughout the financial system. On April 14, 2020, in connection with the release of its first quarter 2020 financial results, Wells Fargo revealed it was taking a massive $4 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock fell 14% over three trading days. On July 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its second quarter 2020 results, which disclosed that the Company had suffered a $2.4 billion loss during the quarter, or ($0.66) per share, and was taking a $9.5 billion provision expense to account for expected credit delinquencies. On this news, the price of Wells Fargo stock fell 5% to $24.25 per share. Then, on October 14, 2020, Wells Fargo released its third quarter 2020 results, with the Company announcing that it had recognized another provision expense of $769 million and that non-accrual loans had increased $2.5 billion, or 45%, to $8 billion during the quarter. The price of Wells Fargo stock fell 6% on this news to close at $23.25 per share on October 14, 2020. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. [GN] WORLEY LIMITED: Federal Court Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Janelle Sputore, Esq. -- jsputore@gtlaw.com.au -- and Justin Mannolini, Esq. -- jmannolini@gtlaw.com.au -- of Gilbert + Tobin, in an article for Lexology, report that the Federal Court has dismissed a securities class action brought against Worley Limited (Worley), an ASX-listed professional services provider, by a group of shareholders alleging breaches of continuous disclosure laws and the prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct. The claim related to earnings guidance released by Worley in 2013 based on a budget that was not released to the public. This was followed by revised-down earnings guidance, after which Worley's shares fell steeply. The Court found that the continuous disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act did not apply to the earnings guidance statements, as there was a reasonable basis for the statements, and that the earnings guidance was not materially lower than professional analytical expectations. The Court noted that the applicant's case was supported mostly by hindsight, with no evidence to contradict Worley. This decision by the Court provides some comfort to Directors of entities releasing earnings guidance, and recognises the impact of hindsight on assessment of such guidance. It is likely this approach will be especially relevant in light of earnings guidance released during COVID-19, given the uncertainty and volatility whch we are continuing to see. [GN] ZOSANO PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Dec. 28 Motion Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Zosano Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ: ZSAN), Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ: CLSN), Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C), and Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Zosano Pharma Corporation (NASDAQ: ZSAN) Class Period: February 13, 2017 to September 30, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020 Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch. Its 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. On September 30, 2020, 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, or 57%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020. On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during development. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or 27%, to close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 29, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company's 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. For more information on the Zosano class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ZSAN Celsion Corporation (NASDAQ: CLSN) Class Period: November 2, 2015 to July 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 28, 2020 Celsion is an integrated development clinical stage oncology drug company that focuses on the development and commercialization of directed chemotherapies, DNA-mediated immunotherapy, and RNA-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. Celsion's lead product candidate is ThermoDox, a heat-activated liposomal encapsulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase III clinical development for treating primary liver cancer. In February 2014, Celsion announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had reviewed and provided clearance for the Company's planned pivotal, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III trial of ThermoDox in combination with radio frequency ablation ("RFA") in primary liver cancer, also known as hepatocellular carcinoma ("HCC"), called the "OPTIMA Study." The trial design was purportedly based on a comprehensive analysis of data from the Company's Phase III HEAT Study, which purportedly demonstrated that treatment with ThermoDox resulted in a 55% improvement in overall survival ("OS") in a substantial number of HCC patients that received an optimized RFA treatment. On July 13, 2020, Celsion announced that "it ha[d] received a recommendation from the independent [DMC] to consider stopping the global Phase III OPTIMA Study of ThermoDox® in combination with [RFA] for the treatment of [HCC], or primary liver cancer." According to the Company, "[t]he recommendation was made following the second pre-planned interim safety and efficacy analysis by the DMC on July 9, 2020," which "found that the pre-specified boundary for stopping the trial for futility of 0.900 was crossed with an actual value of 0.903." On this news, Celsion's stock price fell $2.29 per share, or 63.97%, to close at $1.29 per share on July 13, 2020. The complaint, filed on October 29, 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) defendants had significantly overstated the efficacy of ThermoDox; (ii) the foregoing significantly diminished the approval and commercialization prospects for ThermoDox; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Celsion class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/CLSN Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE: C) Class Period: February 25, 2017 to October 12, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020 The Class Period begins on February 25, 2017, following the Company's submission of its 2016 Annual Report to the SEC. In that filing, and throughout the Class Period, Citi assured investors that there were no significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in the Company's internal controls. When faced with periodic regulatory penalties for noncompliance, the Company continued to assure investors that the specific deficiencies at issue were being remediated promptly and that internal controls and regulatory compliance were a top priority at Citi. In particular, Citi assured investors that it satisfied all regulatory requirements and maintained adequate internal controls, data governance, compliance risk management, and enterprise risk management. In reality, during the Class Period and unbeknownst to investors, Citi's internal controls and risk management capabilities suffered from "serious" and "longstanding" inadequacies that exposed the Company to massive regulatory penalties and will cost significantly more than $1 billion to remediate. Specific control failures about which Citi executives were warned remained unresolved for years and the Company's culture of non-compliance was so widespread that Citi's CEO, Defendant Michael Corbat, exhorted employees in an internal memo that regulatory compliance required more than "checking boxes." The truth began to emerge on September 14, 2020, when reports surfaced that regulators were preparing to reprimand Citi for failing to improve its risk-management systems. That disclosure caused the price of Citi's stock to decline $2.85 per share, from $51.00 to $48.15, erasing $5.91 billion in shareholder value. After the market closed on September 14, 2020, an internal memo sent to Citi employees revealed for the first time the Company's disregard for adequate internal controls and regulatory compliance. As a result, the price of Citi's stock declined an additional $3.34 per share, from $48.15 to $44.81, erasing $6.93 billion in shareholder value. Then, on October 13, 2020, Citi reported earnings for the third quarter of 2020, and disclosed that the Company's expenses increased during the third quarter by 5%, to $11 billion, due to an increase in costs including a $400 million fine, investments in infrastructure, and other remediation costs related to control deficiencies. These disclosures caused Citi's stock price to decline by $2.20 per share, from $45.88 to $43.68, erasing $4.57 billion in shareholder value. For more information on the Citigroup class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/C Raytheon Technologies Corporation (NYSE: RTX) Class Period: February 10, 2016 to October 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 29, 2020 On October 27, 2020, after market hours, Raytheon filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q with the SEC for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 (the "3Q20 Report"). The 3Q20 Report announced the DOJ Investigation, stating in pertinent part: "On October 8, 2020, the Company received a criminal subpoena from the 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." On 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, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. The complaint, filed on October 30, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period 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'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 U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"); and (6) 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. For more information on the Raytheon class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RTX About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] ZOSANO PHARMA: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Carr v. Zosano Pharma Corporation, et al., (Case No. 3:20-cv-07625) on behalf of persons and entities that 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"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Zosano is a clinical stage pharmaceutical company. Its lead product candidate is Qtrypta (M207), a formulation of zolmitriptan coated onto the Company's microneedle patch. Its 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. 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, or 57%, to close at $0.70 per share on October 1, 2020, on unusually heavy trading volume. On October 21, 2020, Zosano disclosed receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA. As a result of the previously identified deficiencies, the FDA recommended that Zosano conduct a repeat bioequivalence study between three of the lots used during development. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.17, or 27%, to close at $0.04440 per share on October 21, 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 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 Zosano securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Mesoblast securities, have information or 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 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] ********* 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 ***