/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/201229.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, December 29, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 260
Headlines
ACM RESEARCH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ACM RESEARCH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 19 Deadline
ALIBABA GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
ALIBABA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 12 Deadline
ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 12 Deadline
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Montalvo Sues Over Mislabeled Cookware
AMERICAN BANKERS: Misclassifies Special Investigators, Raskin Says
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement in MGB Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. Okay
BERRY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 21 Deadline
BERRY CORP: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 21 Deadline
BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 12 Deadline
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
BRAGG LIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Settlement in Fletcher FLSA Suit Approved
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Ex-Peterborough Petes Not Involved in Class Suit
CHARLES NORMAN: Evans Sues Over Electric Vehicle Registration Fees
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
COVIA HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 8 Deadline
COVIA HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline
CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in Birmingham Suit Gets Final Nod
DECO INTERNATIONAL: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Damages
DNATA US: Villar Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
DOMINION VOTING: O'Rourke Suit Alleges Constitutional Violations
DYNASTY MINERALS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
EDGEWATER TECHNICAL: Faces Waldecker Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
EMPIRE TODAY: Slade FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
EMPYREAN SERVICES: Faces Tompkins Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Borger Suit Claims
ENERGIZER BRANDS: MAX Batteries' Label "Deceptive," Skylar Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Privacy Suits
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Sprewell Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Sales Agents, Westcott Suit Claims
FLEX LTD: Judge Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
FLORIDA POWER: Broward Firms Allowed to Join Water Pipe Class Suit
FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticket-Buyer Wants Court to Reconsider Class Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems
H & H WHOLESALE: Northshore Pharmacy Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION: Hicks Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Walker TCPA Class Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
HYPERSPRING LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Waldecker Claims
INMATE SERVICES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Stearns
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
INTERFACE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 11 Deadline
INTUIT INC: Judge Refuses to Grant Class Action Settlement Approval
JERUSALEM BEDDING: Najera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers
JOYY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of January 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
K12 INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
K12 INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 19 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Suit
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of February 9 Deadline
KOCH FOODS: Haff Poultry Antitrust Suit Moved to E.D. Oklahoma
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Leeper Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
LOANCARE LLC: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Brown Suit
MANI & PEDI: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nail Salon Staff
MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Class Action
MDL 2542: $31MM Settlement in Keurig Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. OK
MID VALLEY: Vanderlaan Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
MIDLAND CREDIT: Conway Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
MINERVA NEURO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Robbins Geller Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Genetic Screening Test
NCAA: Supreme Court to Consider Student-Athlete Compensation
NEKTER JUICE: West Central Sues Over Unpaid Produce Shipments
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Rosen Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline
OJ SMITH: Court Certifies FLSA and NCHWA Classes in Gonzalez Suit
ONTARIO: Court Won't OK Settlement Without Detailed Evidence
PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Virus Service
PINTEREST INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 22 Deadline
PIPSNACKS LLC: Angeles Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
PRECISION BROADBAND: Kopp Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid OT
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
QIWI PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 9 Deadline
QUICK QUACK: Curran Consumer Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
R.N.A. OF ANN: Fails to Pay OT to Janitorial Staff, Medrano Claims
REACTOR INC: Discriminates Against Male Gym Goers, Frye Alleges
REALTYSHARES INC: Raudonis Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Proceedings
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
RUGBY FOOTBALL: Faces League Players' Brain Injury Class Action
SHOES FOR CREWS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Angeles Claims
SIGMA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit With Prejudice as to Romero
SOCIALEATS 1315: Breaches PACA-Related Contract, West Central Says
SOCIEDAD QUIMICA: TWPF to Share in U$62.5MM Class Action Payout
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Mann Balks at Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
SPLUNK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 2 Deadline
SPLUNK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Miss. Court Dismisses Lott Suit Without Prejudice
TESSEMAE'S: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sacramento Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
TORTI FOOD: Faces Abreu Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRANSDEV NORTH: Faces Millings Wage & Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
TRITERRAS INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TRITERRAS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Colvin Antitrust Suit Moved From D. Kan. to E.D. Okla.
TYSON FOODS: McEntire Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Detained Immigrants' Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Dismisses Freeman Inmates Suit
VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
WELLS FARGO: Loses Bid to Transfer Urista Suit to W.D. Virginia
[*] Jones County, Iowa to Join Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
*********
ACM RESEARCH: Kirby McInerney Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired
ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM Research" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACMR)
securities during the period from March 6, 2019 through October 7,
2020 (the "Class Period"). Investors have until February 19, 2021
to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.
The lawsuit 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) the Company's revenue and
profits had been diverted to undisclosed related parties; (ii)
accordingly, the Company had materially overstated its revenues and
profits; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 8, 2020, analyst J Capital Research ("J Capital")
published a report concerning ACM Research, in which J Capital
concluded that ACM Research "is a fraud, over-reporting both
revenue and profit." The report cited, among other things, J
Capital's visits to "sites in China, Korea, and California" and
"more than 40 interviews." J Capital asserted that "[w]hat real
profit the company has is apparently being siphoned off to related
parties." The J Capital report concluded that ACM Research's
revenue was overstated by 15-20% and claimed to have "evidence that
undisclosed related parties are diverting revenue and profit from
the company."
On this news, ACM Research's stock price fell $1.09 per share, or
approximately 1.52%, from $71.88 per share to close at $70.79 per
share on October 8, 2020.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ACM Research securities,
have information, or would like to learn more about these claims,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at
212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling
out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with
respect to these matters without any cost to you.
Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts
Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]
ACM RESEARCH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against ACM Research, Inc. ("ACM" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ACMR) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed
in United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, and docketed under 20-cv-09241, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired ACM securities between March 6,
2019 and October 7, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff
seeks to pursue remedies against ACM and certain of the Company's
current and former senior executives under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you are a shareholder who purchased ACM securities during the
Class Period, you have until February 19, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
ACM, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, and
sells single-wafer wet cleaning equipment for enhancing the
manufacturing process and yield for integrated chips worldwide. The
Company markets and sells its products under the Ultra C brand name
through a direct sales force and third-party representatives.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company's revenue and profits had been
diverted to undisclosed related parties; (ii) accordingly, the
Company had materially overstated its revenues and profits; and
(iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On October 8, 2020, analyst J Capital Research ("J Capital")
published a report concerning ACM, in which J Capital concluded
that ACM "is a fraud, over-reporting both revenue and profit." The
report cited, among other things, J Capital's visits to "sites in
China, Korea, and California" and "more than 40 interviews." J
Capital asserted that "[w]hat real profit the company has is
apparently being siphoned off to related parties." The J Capital
report concluded that ACM's revenue was overstated by 15-20% and
claimed to have "evidence that undisclosed related parties are
diverting revenue and profit from the company."
On this news, ACM's stock price fell $1.09 per share, or 1.52%, to
close at $70.79 per share on October 8, 2020.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980
www.pomerantzlaw.com
ALIBABA GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Jan. 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the "Company")
(NYSE:BABA) from July 20, 2020 through November 3, 2020 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Alibaba securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit BABA Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications or
disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (ii) certain
impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment would
impact Ant Group's business; (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (iv) as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, and Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The
article stated that, though regulators did not provide details,
"the Chinese word used to describe the interview yuetan generally
indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article also
included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement the
meeting opinions in depth."
On November 3, 2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements due to
material matters" related to the meeting with regulators the
previous day and "the recent changes in the Fintech regulatory
environment."
On this news, Alibaba's American Depository Share price fell $25.27
per share, or 8%, to close at $285.57 per share on November 3,
2020, on unusually heavy trading volume.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Alibaba securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/alibabagroupholdinglimited-baba-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-344/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
ALIBABA GROUP: Glancy Prongay Reminds of January 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming January 12, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Alibaba Group Holding Limited ("Alibaba" or the
"Company") (NYSE: BABA) securities between July 20, 2020 and
November 3, 2020 inclusive (the "Class Period").
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 is an online and mobile commerce company. Alibaba owns a
33% equity interest in Ant Small and Micro Financial Services Group
Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial technology company that is
best known for operates Alipay, one of the largest mobile and
online payments platforms.
On July 20, 2020, Ant Group announced that it had begun the process
of a concurrent initial public offering ("IPO") on the Shanghai and
Hong Kong stock exchanges.
On October 26, 2020, Ant Group priced its IPO and was set to raise
$34.5 billion, making it the largest public offering in history.
On November 2, 2020, Financial Times reported that Chinese
regulators had met with Ant Group's controller Jack Ma, executive
chairman Eric Jing, Chief Executive Officer Simon Hu. The article
stated that, though regulators did not provide details, "the
Chinese word used to describe the interview - yuetan - generally
indicates a dressing down by authorities." The article also
included a statement from Ant Group that it will "implement the
meeting opinions in depth."
On November 3, 2020, the IPO was suspended because Ant Group "may
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements due to
material matters" related to the meeting with regulators the
previous day and "the recent changes in the Fintech regulatory
environment."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $25.27, or 8%, to
close at $285.57 per share on November 3, 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 Ant Group did not meet listing qualifications
or disclosure requirements for certain material matters; (2) that
certain impending changes in the Fintech regulatory environment
would impact Ant Group's business; (3) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Ant Group's IPO was reasonably likely to be suspended;
and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Alibaba securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than January 12,
2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative
class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need
not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your
choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class
action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if
you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit,
please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contacts:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com [GN]
ALIBABA GROUP: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. 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.
BABA Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11741&wire=1
BRY Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11741&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
Alibaba Group Holding Limited (NYSE:BABA)
BABA Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased July 20, 2020 -
November 3, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/alibaba-group-holding-limited-loss-submission-form?prid=11741&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Alibaba
Group Holding Limited made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Ant Small and Micro
Financial Services Group Co., Ltd. ("Ant Group"), a financial
technology company in which Alibaba owns a 33% equity interest, did
not meet listing qualifications or disclosure requirements for
certain material matters; (2) certain impending changes in the
Fintech regulatory environment would impact Ant Group's business;
(3) as a result of the foregoing, Ant Group's initial public
offering was reasonably likely to be suspended; and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Berry Corporation (NASDAQ:BRY)
Lawsuit on behalf of investors who purchased: (a) Berry common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering conducted on or about July 26, 2018; or (b) Berry
securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020, both dates
inclusive
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 21, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/berry-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=11741&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, (i) Berry had materially
overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (ii) Berry's
operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (iii) the foregoing
would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and
(iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public
statements were materially false and/or misleading and failed to
state information required to be stated therein.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS: Montalvo Sues Over Mislabeled Cookware
--------------------------------------------------------------
BEIRA MONTALVO, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALL-CLAD METALCRAFTERS,
LLC, and GROUPE SEB USA, INC., Defendants, Case No.
9:20-cv-82384-RAR (S.D. Fla., December 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for breach of implied warranties, breach of
express warranty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and
violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in deceptive
and misleading advertising of the D3, D5, and LTD Stainless Steel
Collections. The cookware collections were uniformly marketed,
labeled, and represented to consumers as being conveniently
dishwasher-safe, to make clean-up easier for consumers. However,
contrary to representations, the cookware is not dishwasher safe.
The cookware contains a common defect that makes it unreasonably
dangerous, as during the approved dishwasher cleaning, the second
layer of aluminum deteriorates away from the already razor thin
stainless steel top layer surface, leaving this top layer
protruding from the cookware and creating a condition too sharp for
human contact, and unsuitable for its intended use. Although the
Defendants are aware of material misrepresentations regarding the
cookware's dishwasher safety, it continues to defraud consumers and
its own retailers.
All-Clad Metalcrafters, LLC is a manufacturer and seller of a
variety of metal crafted products, including kitchen appliances,
bakeware, kitchen tools, and cookware, with its principal place of
business located in
Groupe SEB USA, Inc. is a producer of small domestic appliances,
including cookware, headquartered in New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Soffin, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: rachel@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
400 N. Tampa Street, 15th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: jonathan@gregcolemanlaw.com
- and –
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Martha Geer, Esq.
Harper T. Segui, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com
Martha@whitfieldbryson.com
harper@whitfieldbryson.com
AMERICAN BANKERS: Misclassifies Special Investigators, Raskin Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KELLE RASKIN, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN BANKERS LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
FLORIDA, a Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-25094-UU (S.D. Fla., December 15, 2020) arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional and willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant since 2005 as a special
investigator.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified him and
other similarly situated special investigators as exempt from
overtime. Despite frequently working more than 40 hours within a
workweek, the Defendant did not pay them their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate
of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek. Moreover,
the Defendant did not require its special investigators to clock in
and out for purposes of recording their work hours.
American Bankers Life Assurance Company of Florida operates under
the Assurant umbrella that is a global provider of risk management
procedures and services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
Bruce A. Mount, Esq.
THE LEACH FIRM, P.A.
631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300
Winter Park, FL 32789
Tel: (407) 574-8778
Fax: (407) 960-4789
E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com
bmount@theleachfirm.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement in MGB Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, Master Docket No.
18-cv-02830 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted the Settling
Parties' motion for an order preliminarily approving their proposed
class action settlement.
Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System,
Electrical Workers Pension Fund Local 103, I.B.E.W., Manhattan and
Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority Pension Plan,
Metropolitan Transportation Authority Defined Benefit Pension Plan
Master Trust, Boston Retirement System, Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority Pension Plan, United Food and Commercial
Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employer Tri-State
Pension Fund, and Government Employees' Retirement System of the
Virgin Islands and the Settlement Class having applied for an order
preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the Action
against Defendants Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., Barclays Capital Securities Limited, Barclays Bank
Mexico, S.A., Institucion de Banca Multiple, Grupo Financiero
Barclays Mexico, and Grupo Financiero Barclays Mexico, S.A. de
C.V., in accordance with the Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement entered into on March 27, 2020, between the Parties.
Solely for purposes of the Settlement, Judge Oetken preliminarily
certified the Settlement Class and maintained as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He
finds that the applicable provisions of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied and that
the Court will likely be able to approve the Settlement and certify
the Settlement Class for purposes of judgment.
The Settlement Class is defined as: All Persons that entered into a
Mexican Government Bond Transaction at any time between at least
Jan. 1, 2006, and April 19, 2017, where such persons were either
domiciled in the United States or its territories or, if domiciled
outside the United States or its territories, transacted in the
United States or its territories, provided that if, prior to moving
for Final Approval of the Settlement, the Plaintiffs expand the
Class in any subsequent amended complaint, class motion, or in any
other stipulation or settlement agreement Plaintiffs reach with any
other Defendant involving this Action, the defined Class in the
Settlement Agreement will be expanded so as to be coterminous with
such expansion.
The Judge appointed Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. as the Class Counsel,
A.B. Data, Ltd. as the Settlement Administrator, and the Plaintiffs
as the representatives of the Settlement Class.
The Fairness Hearing will be held on a date of the Court's
convenience on or after Sept. 13, 2021, at 3:00 p.m. (approximately
270 days after entry of the Order.
The terms of the Settlement Agreement are preliminarily approved.
All proceedings in this Action as to Settling Defendants, other
than such proceedings as may be necessary to implement the proposed
Settlement or to effectuate the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
are stayed and suspended until further order of the Court.
Within 126 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will cause copies of the mailed notice as described
in the proposed notice program. The foregoing mailings will be
completed no later than 189 days after the date of the entry of the
Order.
Within 126 days after entry of the Order, the Settlement
Administrator will cause to be published a publication notice as
described in the proposed notice program.
The Settlement Administrator will maintain a Settlements website,
www.MGBAntitrustSettlement.com, beginning no later than the first
date of mailing notice to the Class and remaining until the
termination of the administration of the Settlement. The website
may be amended as appropriate during the course of the
administration of the Settlement. The Settlements website,
www.MGBAntitrustSettlement.com, will be searchable on the
Internet.
The Settlement Administrator will maintain a toll-free interactive
voice response telephone system containing recorded answers to
frequently asked questions, along with an option permitting callers
to speak to live operators or to leave messages in a voicemail
box.
The Judge approved, in form and substance, the mailed notice, the
publication notice, and the website as described.
At least 49 days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Settlement
Administrator will serve and file a sworn statement attesting to
compliance with the notice provisions of the Order.
Any objection to the Settlement or motion to intervene submitted by
a member of the Settlement Class pursuant to the Order must be
signed by the member of the Settlement Class, even if the member of
the Settlement Class is represented by the counsel. All objectors
will make themselves available to be deposed by any Party in the
Southern District of New York or the county of the objector's
residence or principal place of business within seven days of
service of the objector's timely written objection.
Any Request for Exclusion from the Settlement by a member of the
Settlement Class must be sent by a service that provides for
guaranteed delivery within five or fewer calendar days of mailing
to the Settlement Administrator at the address in the mailed notice
and postmarked no later than 35 days before the Fairness Hearing.
The Settlement Administrator will promptly log each Request for
Exclusion that it receives and provide copies of the log to Class
Counsel and the Settling Defendants' counsel as requested.
The Settlement Administrator will furnish the Class Counsel and the
counsel for the Settling Defendants with copies of any and all
objections, motions to intervene, notices of intention to appear,
and other communications that come into its possession (except as
otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement) within
one business day of receipt thereof.
Within 10 business days following the Exclusion Bar Date, the
Settlement Administrator will prepare an opt-out list identifying
all Persons, if any, who submitted a timely and valid Request for
Exclusion from the Settlement Class, as provided in the Settlement
Agreement, and an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the
opt-out list. The Settlement Administrator will provide the
counsel for the Settling Defendants and the Class Counsel with
copies of any Requests for Exclusion and any written revocations of
Requests for Exclusion as soon as possible after receipt by the
Settlement Administrator and, in any event, within one business day
after receipt by the Settlement Administrator and, in no event,
later than five business days after the Exclusion Bar Date. The
Class Counsel will file the opt-out list and affidavit of the
Settlement Administrator attesting to the accuracy of such list
with the Court.
All Proofs of Claim and Release will be submitted by the members of
the Settlement Class to the Settlement Administrator as directed in
the mailed notice and must be postmarked no later than 30 days
after the Fairness Hearing.
The Settlement Administrator will maintain a copy of all paper
communications related to the Settlement for a period of one year
after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund defined in the
Settlement Agreement, and will maintain a copy of all electronic
communications related to the Settlement for a period of three
years after distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, after which
time all such materials will be destroyed, absent further direction
from the Parties or the Court.
The Judge preliminarily approved the establishment of the
Settlement Fund defined in the Settlement Agreement as a qualified
settlement fund pursuant to Section 468B of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated
thereunder. He appointed The Huntington National Bank to act as
Escrow Agent for the Settlement Fund.
The Class Counsel will file their motions for payment of attorneys'
fees and reimbursement of expenses, incentive awards, and for final
approval of the Settlement at least 49 days prior to the Fairness
Hearing. If the Settlement is approved by the Court following the
Fairness Hearing, a Final Approval Order and Final Judgment will be
entered as described in the Settlement Agreement.
The Court may, for good cause, extend any of the deadlines set
forth in this Order without notice to members of the Settlement
Class, other than that which may be posted at the Court or on the
Settlements website, www.MGBAntitrustSettlement.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3rmDnYm from Leagle.com.
BERRY CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of January 21 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Berry Corporation ("Berry" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:BRY) (i) in
connection with the Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on July 26,
2018; and/or (ii) from July 26, 2018 through November 3, 2020 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas alleges violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Berry securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Berry Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents, and, during the
Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry had materially overstated
its operational efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's operational
inefficiency and instability would foreseeably necessitate
operational improvements that would disrupt the Company's
productivity and increase costs; (3) the foregoing would
foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (4) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.
On November 3, 2020, post-market, Berry reported its financial and
operating results for the third quarter of 2020. Among other
results, Berry reported non-GAAP EPS and revenue that both fell
short of estimates. In addition, Berry reported that during the
quarter, "the Company undertook certain operational improvements
that caused temporary reductions in our production. Notably we
performed some plugging and abandonment activity that resulted in
temporary shut-in of nearby wells. Additionally, improved steam
management reduced overall costs but temporarily increased water
disposal and well maintenance needs, resulting in a slight decrease
in production."
On this news, Berry's stock price fell $0.15 per share, or 5.28%,
to close at $2.69 per share on November 4, 2020, representing an
80.78% decline from the IPO price.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Berry securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/berrycorporation-bry-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-336/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. [GN]
BERRY CORP: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 21 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY) (a) pursuant and/or traceable to
the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about July
26, 2018 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b) between July 26, 2018
and November 3, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Berry Corporation
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Berry had materially
overstated its operational efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's
operational inefficiency and instability would foreseeably
necessitate operational improvements that would disrupt the
Company's productivity and increase costs; (3) the foregoing would
foreseeably negatively impact the Company's revenues; and (4) as a
result, the Offering Documents and the Company's public statements
were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state
information required to be stated therein.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com
BIOGEN INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Biogen Inc. shareholders. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
BIIB Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11652&wire=1
Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB)
BIIB Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 22, 2019
- November 6, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 12, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/biogen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11652&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Biogen
Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (1) the larger dataset did not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (2) the EMERGE
study did not and would not provide necessary data regarding the
effectiveness of aducanumab, Biogen's investigational human
monoclonal antibody studied for the treatment of early Alzheimer's
disease; (3) the PRIME study did not and would not provide
necessary data regarding aducanumab's effectiveness; (4) the data
provided by the Company to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee did
not support finding efficacy of aducanumab; and (5) 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.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
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 [GN]
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Frank R. Cruz Announces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific Corporation
("Boston Scientific" or the "Company") (NYSE: BSX) securities
between April 24, 2019 and November 16, 2020 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Boston Scientific investors have until February 2, 2021
to file a lead plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to
participate.
On November 17, 2020, Boston Scientific announced a worldwide
recall of all unused inventory of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System, a transcatheter aortic valve replacement product which had
been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in
April 2019. Citing "complexities associated with the product
delivery system" and the "additional time and investment required
to develop and reintroduce an enhanced delivery system," the
Company stated that it had "chosen to retire the entire LOTUS
product platform immediately."
On this news, Boston Scientific's stock price fell $3.00 per share,
or approximately 8%, to close at $35.03 per share on November 17,
2020, thereby injuring investors.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System's product delivery
system was dysfunctional and threatened the continued viability of
the entire product line; (2) as a result, the Company had
materially overstated the continued commercial viability and
profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve System; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.
Follow us for updates on Twitter: twitter.com/FRC_LAW.
If you purchased Boston Scientific securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than February 2, 2021 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 Boston Scientific 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. [GN]
BRAGG LIVE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bragg Live Food
Products, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Bragg Live Food
Products, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10916 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Bragg Live Food Products -- https://www.bragg.com/ -- produces and
distributes packaged food products. The Company offers salad
dressings, nutritional seasoning blends, olive oil, and
beverages.[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
CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT: Settlement in Fletcher FLSA Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SEAN FLETCHER, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated Plaintiff v. CAMPBELL DEVELOPMENT LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 20-641 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon of the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
granted the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement.
The Plaintiff seeks approval of a proposed settlement for his
personal claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") against
the Defendant. As the parties note, and Judge Bissoon agrees, the
law in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is unclear as to
whether the parties require court approval of a proposed settlement
of an individual action. Nonetheless, given the parties' specific
request for Court-approval, and that other courts in the District
have approved settlements in similar situations, the Judge
considers the motion for approval of settlement.
The case concerned FLSA overtime claims and the Plaintiff's
classification as an independent contractor. As the parties
represent that during the course of informal discovery, the
Defendant produced substantial evidence in support of its defenses,
the Judge finds that the evidence would produce some doubt as to
whether the Plaintiff would succeed on the merits at trial,
creating a bona fide dispute. Also, the costs of continuing to
litigate the case would likely reduce the Plaintiff's potential
recovery, assuming arguendo that he prevailed on all his
allegations.
As to the Plaintiff's attorneys' fees, the counsel seeks a fee of
approximately 21% of the total settlement under the
percentage-of-recovery theory and actual costs of $1,250 for filing
fees, motions and service. Courts in the Circuit have approved
percentage-of-recovery rates anywhere from approximately 20% to
45%. As such, the Judge finds that the requested attorneys' fees
are reasonable.
Finally, the Judge notes that generally, there is a strong
presumption in favor of keeping settlement agreements in FLSA
wage-settlement cases unsealed and available for public view.
However, given the parties' representation that the negotiation of
the Settlement Agreement was based partly in reliance on the
confidentiality of the settlement, she finds that sealing is
appropriate in the case, and given that the settlement seeks to
settle only the Plaintiff's individual claims, the same general
principles of public interest do not apply.
Consistent with the foregoing, Judge Bissoon granted the
Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement. Upon
consideration of, and for the reasons set forth in the Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion, and having determined that the action presents a
bona fide dispute over FLSA provisions, that the Settlement is
fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the
Plaintiff, and that the attorney fees and costs sought by the
Plaintiff's Counsel are fair and reasonable, the Judge approved the
FLSA Settlement Agreement, and all terms and conditions contained
therein. All the claims and the counterclaims asserted in the
matter are dismissed with prejudice. The Defendant will make all
payments required by and as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Memorandum Order is
available at https://bit.ly/37H64aI from Leagle.com.
CANADIAN HOCKEY: Ex-Peterborough Petes Not Involved in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Davies, writing for The Peterborough Examiner, reports that to
date no former Peterborough Petes have joined a class-action
lawsuit alleging abuse and hazing while playing in the Canadian
Hockey League.
Former NHL player Dan Carcillo and Garrett Taylor, who played in
the Western Hockey League from 2008 to 2010, filed a statement of
claim with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in June. Earlier
this month, 14 additional players filed affidavits to join the
lawsuit which seeks class-action certification.
The Examiner has seen the affidavits with the names of 14 of the
complainants redacted. None of the 16 players listed the Petes as
one of the teams they played for or Peterborough as their place of
birth.
The oldest complainant, former Ottawa 67's player Doug Smith, 57,
allowed TSN to identify him in an interview. He played in the
Ontario Hockey League from 1979 to 1982.
The youngest plaintiff is 27 and last played in the OHL in 2014.
The plaintiffs include an RCMP officer, a lawyer and a junior
hockey coach.
The majority played in the OHL, a couple played with Carcillo and
corroborated his allegations of abuse from teammates while a member
of the Sarnia Sting, and WHL. There are plaintiffs from the Quebec
Major Junior Hockey League.
Petes president Dave Pogue said he is unable to comment on the
lawsuit as the league has asked media inquiries be directed to the
OHL head office.
A statement from Koskie Minsky LLP, the law firm representing
Carcillo and Taylor, said the action "is on behalf of children aged
15 to 17 who were sexually and physically assaulted, hazed and
otherwise abused while away from home and playing for CHL teams."
The CHL, its three member leagues and all 60 CHL teams are listed
as defendants.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
One player who played for the Victoria Cougars said he was
sodomized with a hockey stick by older players. Another who played
with the Winnipeg Warriors and Calgary Wranglers in the 1980s
detailed how older players allegedly demanded the rookies take
their clothes off before throwing things at them.
A player, with the Sting in the 2000s, said a sawed off goalie
stick was used for paddling on the rookies' bare buttocks.
Smith said he was jumped in the locker-room and blindfolded. He
said older players tied him up, took off his clothes and shaved his
genitals.
A player with the Oshawa Generals and North Bay Centennials in the
1990s said younger players were forced to do pushups in the showers
while the veterans spat, urinated and defecated on their backs.
The CHL said in a statement it is completing a detailed review of
the legal documents.
The league says it takes the matter extremely seriously and finds
the allegations deeply disturbing.
"Most of the allegations are historic in nature and we believe are
not indicative of the experiences of current CHL players," the
statement said.
In July the CHL announced it had appointed an independent review
panel to review the current policies and practices in the league
related to hazing, abuse, harassment, bullying and the allegation
that players do not feel comfortable reporting behaviours that
contravene these policies.
The panel is chaired by former New Brunswick premier Camille
Thériault and includes former NHL player Sheldon Kennedy, who was
sexually abused by his former junior hockey coach and is now an
advocate for abuse survivors, and Danièle Sauvageau.
The report was expected to be completed prior to the 2020-21 season
but has not yet been made public.
The CHL says in the past 20 years it has introduced a number of
programs through its Players First initiative to educate players
and team staff on respect in sport, prevention of hazing, abuse,
harassment and bullying, along with introducing mental health
programs. — with files from the Canadian Press [GN]
CHARLES NORMAN: Evans Sues Over Electric Vehicle Registration Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
VANESSA EVANS, SUSAN LAPINE, GAIL & ROGER MCKINNEY, CHARLES & MARY
TIPTON, BENJAMIN TIPTON, and SETH & JILLIAN TIPTON, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
CHARLES NORMAN, JACK MARCHBANKS, THOMAS STICKRATH, and ROBERT
SPRAGUE, Defendants, Case No. CV 20 941894 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl.,
Cuyahoga Cty., December 22, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendants for violation of constitutional rights.
The Defendants allegedly violated the constitutional rights of the
Plaintiffs and Class members by enforcing and collecting special
annual registration fees for electric and hybrid vehicles pursuant
to the amended Revised Code (R.C.) 4503.10 on January 1, 2020.
The Plaintiffs and Class members seek injunctive relief to require
the Defendants to refund all the fees collected from them and to
enjoin the Defendants from relying on the amended R.C. 4503.10 to
collect fees in the future. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
CONNICK LAW, LLC
25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
Beachwood OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0512
Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
- and –
Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
20030 Marchmont Rd.
Shaker Heights, OH 44122-2852
Telephone: (216) 751-5546
Facsimile: (216) 751-5564
E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com
- and –
George W. Cochran, Esq.
1385 Russell Drive
Streetsboro, OH 44241
Telephone: (330) 607-2187
Facsimile: (330) 230-6136
E-mail: lawchrist@gmail.com
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Moore Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE MOORE, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons
and entities similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-01867 (D. Conn.,
December 15, 2020) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant contracted with the
EXPINFO in August 2018 in which the agreement entitled "Charter
Communications Marketing Rules" that was executed by Bhattacharya,
on behalf of EXPINFO, and Michael G. Locke, on behalf of the
Defendant. In order to generate sales, EXPINFO engaged in outbound
telemarketing campaigns on behalf of the Defendant.
The Plaintiff claims that he received several telemarketing calls
on his telephone number 630-XXX-1188 from EXPINFO, on behalf of the
Defendant. The Plaintiff's telephone number is a residential
telephone number which has been on the National Do Not Call
Registry for more than 10 years prior to the calls he received. The
Plaintiff was able to confirm the Defendant's involvement by
pretending to be interested in the services and has obtained a
reference number or a Caller ID number that is non-working number.
In addition, more individuals have complained about receiving
robocalls from that number.
The Plaintiff asserts that he never provided his prior express
invitation or permission to the Defendant to be contacted via
telemarketing calls.
Charter Communications, Inc. operates a Retail Partner Program in
which the Defendant contracts with third parties to engage in
marketing on behalf of the Defendant, including the marketing of
Spectrum branded cable and Internet services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Tel: (508) 221-1510
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and –
Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
Keith J. Keogh, Esq.
KEOGH LAW, LTD.
55 W. Monroe St., Suite 3390
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: (866) 726-1092
Fax: (312) 726-1093
COVIA HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 8 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Covia") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA)
(NYSE: FMSA) between March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the important February 8, 2021 lead
plaintiff deadline in the first filed securities class action
commenced by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for
Covia investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Covia class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1993.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) Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not
necessarily more effective than ordinary sand; (2) Covia's
revenues, which were dependent on its proprietary "value-added"
proppants, was based on misrepresentations; (3) when Covia insiders
raised this issue, defendants did not take meaningful steps to
rectify the issue; 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. 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 February
8, 2021. 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-1993.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]
COVIA HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of February 8 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Covia Holdings Corporation f/k/a
Fairmount Santrol Holdings Inc. ("Covia") (OTC: CVIAQ) (NYSE: CVIA)
(NYSE: FMSA) between March 15, 2016 to June 29, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased shares of Covia Holdings Corporation
and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the shares of Covia Holdings
Corporation., you may, no later than February 8, 2021, request that
the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please
contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an
investor in the shares of Covia Holdings Corporation.
According to the filed complaint, defendants throughout the Class
Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:
Covia's proprietary "value-added" proppants were not necessarily
more effective than ordinary sand; Covia's revenues, which were
dependent on its proprietary "value-added" proppants, was based on
misrepresentations; when Covia insiders raised this issue,
defendants did not take meaningful steps to rectify the issue; and
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.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Kevin Cooper, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 [GN]
CREDIT SUISSE: Class Settlement in Birmingham Suit Gets Final Nod
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, et
al., Plaintiff v. CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 17 Civ. 10014 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Lorna G. Schofield of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
entered final order and judgment approving the class action
settlement.
Lead Plaintiffs City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System,
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefit Funds, Teamsters Local 456 Pension and Annuity Funds, and
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 710 Pension
Plan, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class; and
Defendants Credit Suisse Group AG, and Brady W. Dougan, Tidjane
Thiam, and David R. Mathers, have entered into a Stipulation And
Agreement Of Settlement dated July 8, 2020, that provides for a
complete dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against
the Defendants in the Action on the terms and conditions set forth
in the Stipulation, subject to the approval of the Court.
Jude Schofield held a preliminary approval hearing on Aug. 17,
2020. By Order dated Aug. 24, 2020, the Judge: (a) preliminarily
approved the Settlement; (b) certified the Settlement Class solely
for purposes of effectuating the Settlement; (c) ordered that
notice of the proposed Settlement be provided to potential
Settlement Class Members; (d) provided Settlement Class Members
with the opportunity either to exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class or to object to the proposed Settlement; and (e)
scheduled a hearing regarding final approval of the Settlement.
Due and adequate notice has been given to the Settlement Class.
The Judge conducted the Settlement Hearing on Dec. 10, 2020.
Having reviewed and considered the Stipulation, all papers filed
and proceedings held herein in connection with the Settlement, all
oral and written comments received regarding the Settlement, and
the record in the Action, and good cause appearing therefor, she
affirmed her determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order
certifying, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as
a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the ADRs of Credit Suisse between March 20, 2015, and Feb.
3, 2016, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
The Judge also affirmed her determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order certifying the Lead Plaintiffs as the Class
Representatives for the Settlement Class and appointing the Lead
Counsel as the Class Counsel.
Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Judge fully and finally approved the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects except as
set forth in any of the Court's Orders. The Action and all of the
claims asserted against the Defendants in the Action by the Lead
Plaintiffs and the other Settlement Class Members are dismissed
with prejudice. The Parties will bear their own costs and
expenses, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the
Stipulation.
Following the entry of the Order, the Lead Counsel will provide the
Court with interim reports every 45 days on the claims
administration process. The interim reports will summarize the
status of the claims administration process, whether settlement
administration fees are anticipated to exceed $350,000, and whether
an application for cy pres distribution is anticipated.
After the Claims Administrator completes the administration
process, Lead Counsel will file a motion for distribution of the
Settlement Fund, which will provide the Court with information
regarding the claims administration process, including the number
of claims submitted, total amount of claims, total expenses
incurred by the Claims Administrator to date, whether its total
expenses are anticipated to exceed $350,000, and whether an
application for cy pres distribution is anticipated.
After the Settlement Fund is distributed to Class members and, in
the opinion of the Claims Administrator and the Lead Counsel, there
are no remaining funds to be distributed or there are insufficient
funds to make a further distribution economically feasible, the
Lead Counsel will file with the Court a further motion which will
provide the Court with information regarding the claims
administration process including but not limited to the amount of
the Settlement Fund distributed to the Class members and, if
warranted, an application for cy pres distribution and/or
application for payment of and claims administration fees in excess
of $350,000.
Separate orders will be entered regarding approval of a plan of
allocation and the motion of the Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses.
Without further order of the Court, the Lead Plaintiffs and the
Defendants may agree to reasonable extensions of time to carry out
any provisions of the Settlement.
If the Settlement is terminated as provided in the Stipulation or
the Effective Date of the Settlement otherwise fails to occur, the
Judgment will be vacated, rendered null and void and be of no
further force and effect, except as otherwise provided by the
Stipulation, and the Judgment will be without prejudice to the
rights of the Lead Plaintiffs, the other Settlement Class Members
and the Defendants, and the Parties will revert to their respective
positions in the Action as of July 8, 2020, as provided in the
Stipulation.
There is no just reason to delay the entry of this Judgment as a
final judgment in the Action. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court
is expressly directed to enter immediately the final judgment in
the Action.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Final Order is
available at https://bit.ly/2WDPFOb from Leagle.com.
DECO INTERNATIONAL: Rivera Seeks Unpaid OT & Retaliatory Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO L. RIVERA, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. DECO INTERNATIONAL SECURITY CORPORATION, and THOMAS
SANON-JULES, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-25116-RNS
(S.D. Fla., December 16, 2020) alleges the Defendant of retaliation
and failure to pay overtime wages in violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff asserts that although he completed a minimum of 50
hours weekly and was not even able to take bona fide lunch breaks
during his employment with the Defendants, the Defendant did not
pay him for overtime hours he worked, not even the minimum wage
rate as required by the law. Thereby, the Defendants failed to pay
him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his
regular rate of pay for every hour that he worked over 40.
Nevertheless, the Plaintiff suffered the Defendant's retaliation.
He was sanctioned with a suspension of 3 weeks after he complaint
and then he was transferred to a less convenient position where he
suffered discrimination. Subsequently, he was immediately
terminated after complaining.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant approximately from
October 1, 2017 to September 9, 2018 as a non-exempted full-time,
hourly, security guard, brings this complaint as a collective
action to recover from the Defendants overtime compensation,
retaliatory damages, liquidated damages, and other costs and
reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA.
Deco International Security Corporation provides security services
to businesses, residential communities, institutions construction
sites, etc. Thomas Sanon-Jules is the owner/officer and manager of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
DNATA US: Villar Wage-and-Hour Class Suit Removed to E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled YISSET GARCIA VILLAR, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DNATA US INFLIGHT CATERING, LLC
d/b/a 121 IN-FLIGHT CATERING, and JOHN DOES 1-3, Case No.
34-2020-00282263, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of Nassau, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on December 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-06234 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the New
York Labor Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated employees spread-of-hours premium.
Dnata US Inflight Catering, LLC, doing business as 121 In-Flight
Catering, is an operator of a food preparation kitchen at 45 Rason
Road, Inwood, New York, with its principal place of business at 7
Juliano Drive, Oxford, Connecticut. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael R. Wood, Esq.
Benjamin M. Rattner, Esq.
CERMELE & WOOD LLP
2 Westchester Park Dr. Ste. 110
White Plains, NY 10604
Telephone: (914) 967-2753
E-mail: mike@cw.legal
ben@cw.legal
DOMINION VOTING: O'Rourke Suit Alleges Constitutional Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN O'ROURKE, NATHANIEL L. CARTER, LORI CUTUNILLI, LARRY D. COOK,
ALVIN CRISWELL, KESHA CRENSHAW, NEIL YARBROUGH, and AMIE TRAPP, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS INC., FACEBOOK, INC., CENTER FOR TECH
AND CIVIC LIFE, MARK E. ZUCKERBERG, PRISCILLA CHAN, BRIAN KEMP,
BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, GRETCHEN WHITMER, JOCELYN BENSON, TOM WOLF,
KATHY BOOCKVAR, TONY EVERS, ANN S. JACOBS, MARK L. THOMSEN, MARGE
BOSTELMAN, JULIE M. GLANCEY, DEAN KNUDSON, ROBERT F. SPINDELL, JR.,
and DOES 1-10,000, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-03747-NRN (D.
Colo., December 22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of electoral clause, equal protection, due process,
right to associate and freedom of press pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution, Amendments XIV.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged involvement in
concerted action to interfere with the 2020 presidential election
through a coordinated effort to, among other things, (1) change
voting laws without legislative approval, (2) use unreliable voting
machines, (3) alter votes through an illegitimate adjudication
process, (4) provide illegal methods of voting, (5) count illegal
votes, (6) suppress the speech of opposing voices, (7)
disproportionally and privately fund only certain municipalities
and counties, and other methods, all prohibited by the
Constitution.
The Plaintiffs have been damaged and, unless the Defendants are
enjoined, will continue to suffer the loss of their individual
right to vote, freedom of speech, due process and equal protection
under the laws and the U.S. Constitution.
Dominion Voting Systems Inc. is a company that sells electronic
voting hardware and software, headquartered in Toronto, Canada.
Facebook, Inc. is an American technology conglomerate based in
Menlo Park, California.
Center for Tech and Civic Life is a nonprofit organization which
aims to modernize the American voting experience based in Chicago,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary D. Fielder, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GARY FIELDER
2325 W. 72nd Ave.
Denver, CO 80221
Telephone: (303) 650-1505
E-mail: criminaldefense@fielderlaw.net
- and –
Ernest J. Walker, Esq.
ERNEST J. WALKER LAW OFFICE
3368 Riverside Road
Benton Harbor, MI
DYNASTY MINERALS: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
shareholders. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the court by the lead plaintiff deadline listed below. 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
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.
To discuss the case below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
CLASS PERIOD: 12/21/2017-11/25/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 2, 2021
Throughout the class period Defendants failed to disclose to
investors(1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean
Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company
planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and
scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's
permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
If you purchased Northern Dynasty securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Northern Dynasty
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2019 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
EDGEWATER TECHNICAL: Faces Waldecker Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WALDECKER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EDGEWATER TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:20-cv-01298-KK-LF (D. New Mex., December 15, 2020) is a
collective action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid Staff
Augmentation from approximately May 2019 through September 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did not pay him and other
similarly situated hourly paid employees overtime compensation
despite they regularly worked more 40 hours a week. Instead, the
Defendant paid them the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
The Defendant's "straight time for overtime" payment scheme
violates the FLSA because it deprives the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees of overtime at a rate of one and
one-half times their regular rates for all the hours they worked in
excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
Edgewater Technical Associates, LLC is a technical services firm
supporting the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S., U.K., and
Canadian Commercial Nuclear Industry, and private sector business
involved in high-hazard and complex operations. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
EMPIRE TODAY: Slade FCRA Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEUL SLADE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. RG20080698, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
on December 22, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:20-cv-09301 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by invading the privacy and statutory
rights of the Plaintiff and Class members.
Empire Today, LLC is a home improvement and home furnishing company
based in Northlake, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shareef S. Farag, Esq.
Jennifer F. Delarosa, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
E-mail: sfarag@bakerlaw.com
jdelarosa@bakerlaw.com
EMPYREAN SERVICES: Faces Tompkins Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
JOHN TOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPYREAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-00186-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., December 22, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated electrical planners overtime pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
Mr. Tompkins worked for the Defendant as an electrical planner at
the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke County, Georgia from
approximately November 2019 until September 2020.
Empyrean Services, LLC is a provider of technical consulting
services to the energy sector based in Georgia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy A. Lanier, Esq.
TROY A. LANIER, PC
430 Ellis Street
Augusta, GA 30901
Telephone: (706) 823-6800
E-mail: tlanier@tlanierlaw.com
ENCOMPASS HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Borger Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
EDEE BORGER, Plaintiff v. ENCOMPASS HEALTH CORPORATION AND TYLER
REHAB ASSOCIATES, LP d/b/a CHRISTUS TRINITY MOTHER FRANCES
REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00388-JRG
(E.D. Tex., December 16, 2020) brings this complaint on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated employees against the
Defendant for its alleged intentional and willful violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee, alleges that the Defendant repeatedly and willfully
failed to pay her and other similarly situated employees, or former
employees, for hours they worked and for all overtime hours they
worked through their lunch hour and off the clock, including those
times while on vacation and after clocking out form work.
In addition, the Defendant allegedly have breached the oral
contract by failing to pay the Plaintiff as agreed on by its Human
Resource Director.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages as a result of the Defendants failure
and refusal to pay proper compensation. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks
to recover all unpaid wages, including all uncompensated overtime
wages for hours worked for any activity that is integral and
indispensable to the principal activities, as well as attorney
fees, actual damages, and injunctive relief from the Court to
prevent future violations of the FLSA.
Encompass Health Corporation and Tyler Rehab Associates, LP d/b/a
Christus Trinity Mother Frances Rehabilitation Hospital offers
rehabilitative care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
BOB WHITEHURST
5380 Old Bullard Road, Suite 600, #363
Tyler, TX 75703
Tel: (903) 593-5588
ENERGIZER BRANDS: MAX Batteries' Label "Deceptive," Skylar Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARD SKYLAR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENERGIZER BRANDS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-06216 (E.D.N.Y., December 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of express warranty, false
advertising and unfair and deceptive trade practices under the New
York General Business Law, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive
advertising of its MAX batteries. The MAX batteries are represented
by the Defendant to have up to 50% longer lasting than basic
alkaline batteries in demanding devices when in reality, they do
not. As a result of the Defendant's unlawful and deceptive conduct,
the Plaintiff and Class members have been and continue to be harmed
by purchasing a product under false pretenses.
Energizer Brands, LLC is a battery manufacturing company with its
headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Melissa R. Emert, Esq.
KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
memert@kgglaw.com
- and –
David C. Magagna Jr., Esq.
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 592-1500
E-mail: dmagagna@lfsblaw.com
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com
dlietz@masonllp.com
- and –
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MASON LIETZ & KLINGER LLP
227 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (202) 640-1160
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gklinger@masonllp.com
FACEBOOK INC: Winston & Strawn Attorneys Discuss Privacy Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Amato, Esq., and Jack Cartwright, ESq., of Winston &
Strawn LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that antitrust, data
privacy, unfair competition, and class actions are among the
pillars of consumer protection law. At the same time that federal
government agencies and state attorneys general launch
investigations and litigations targeting "Big Tech," the
plaintiffs' class action bar is brainstorming and testing novel
theories of competitive harm that unite antitrust and data privacy.
In light of these recent activities, companies that use consumer
data in their business operations must take heed of the uncertain
legal landscape that is evolving to meet technological advances in
data analytics.
In recent weeks, multiple class action lawsuits have been filed
against Facebook for alleged antitrust violations for infringing
upon user privacy. The complaints allege, among other things, that
Facebook abuses its market dominance by violating user privacy and
maintaining monopoly power by deceiving consumers and acquiring
rivals, nascent rivals, or potential rivals. The class actions
follow lawsuits brought by each of the Federal Trade Commission and
48 state attorneys general, both alleging that Facebook engages in
anticompetitive tactics to either acquire or kill off its rivals.
One of the recent lawsuits filed on December 9, 2020, by Facebook's
users, marketers and direct buyers of advertisements exemplifies
the legal claims against the social media company. The private
putative class action is especially notable because it puts forward
a novel theory of antitrust harm -- that Facebook (a service that
is "free" from a monetary price perspective) has abused its market
power by charging an increased quality -- adjusted price for a
product that is substantially degraded in quality due to privacy
violations. The complaint alleges that Facebook's erosion of
privacy protections is not just a consumer protection harm, but
also an antitrust harm. According to the putative class members,
they must adhere to Facebook's privacy policies if they want to
participate in social media because of Facebook's market dominance
achieved through ownership of various social media platforms.
Moreover, plaintiffs allege that Facebook's privacy policies are
difficult for consumers to understand, that Facebook deliberately
obfuscates users' ability to know the nature and extent of the data
it collects, and that it inhibits changes to privacy preferences by
hiding them among dozens of other types of user preferences. All of
this, plaintiffs allege, has resulted in the elimination or
reduction of competition for users on the basis of privacy in the
social network market and social media market. As a result,
Facebook causes its users "to pay a higher data price than they
would freely choose."
The class actions are notable because they bridge a divide between
regulation of privacy and competition. These areas of law have long
been the source of debate among legal experts and policy -- makers
-- with many remarking on a perceived tension between them.[4] For
example, by overregulating privacy, incumbent firms such as
Facebook or other "Big Tech" companies could hypothetically hamper
market entry by withholding data that new entrants need to
effectively compete.[5] On the other hand, allowing new entrants to
access incumbent firms' data could compromise user privacy.[6] The
putative class action against Facebook characterizes those
tradeoffs as a false choice, claiming that antitrust and privacy
issues must be considered together.
Although pursuing an antitrust cause of action for privacy
violations may be a novel theory in the United States, German
regulators previously challenged Facebook for essentially the same
reasons. The German authority alleges in early 2019 that because of
"Facebook's large market share, consumers have no choice but to
relinquish their privacy to be part of the social network."[7] As a
result, the German authority prohibited Facebook from associating
data from applications like WhatsApp or Instagram with the main
platform unless a person specifically agreed to the association.
Whether the plaintiffs' suits will be successful remains to be
seen. Nonetheless, these actions could mark the beginning of a new
frontier of class action lawsuits against large technology
companies alleging privacy violations as an antitrust harm. For
that reason, companies that utilize consumer data for their
business should be aware of regulators' and civil litigants'
increased focus on their conduct -- especially if they could be
alleged to have market power. Specifically, companies should be
cognizant of five types of conduct in relation to data that could
be construed as exclusionary: refusal to provide access to data;
discriminatory access; exclusive contracts; tied sales and
cross-usage; and discriminatory pricing. Other ways companies can
protect themselves include: maintaining a record of the use and
objectives of relevant databases that is updated as objectives
change and evolve; assessing whether competitors have access to
comparable data they need to offer comparable products or services;
and considering expanding traditional antitrust compliance programs
and training to address the relevant antitrust and privacy
considerations raised by a company's use of data, such as
reexamining privacy policies and providing training to employees
beyond the salesforce to those working with gathering, collecting,
contracting and using data or the algorithms that analyze the
information. [GN]
FEDERAL EXPRESS: Sprewell Labor Class Suit Goes to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LEE SPREWELL, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION; and DOES
1-10, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV34774, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on December 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-11612 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code, the California Civil Code, and the
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Federal Express Corporation is an American multinational delivery
services company, headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David S. Wilson, III, Esq.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION
2601 Main Street, Suite 340
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: (949) 862-4656
Facsimile: (901) 492-5641
E-mail: dswilson@fedex.com
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Underpays Sales Agents, Westcott Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIJAH WESTCOTT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 20GDCV01113 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 21, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay overtime and
double time, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to provide rest
and meal periods, failure to keep accurate payroll records and
provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay split shift pay,
failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages
earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to provide basic
information at the time of hiring and when employment changes
occur, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a sales agent from on
or about December 23, 2019 until approximately March 10, 2020.
Fitness International, LLC is a company that operates sports and
fitness clubs based in Irvine, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
Kevin Crough, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
kevin@hbklawyers.com
FLEX LTD: Judge Dismisses Putative Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
December 10, 2020, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California dismissed with
prejudice a putative securities class action asserting claims under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against a manufacturing and
design company and certain of its officers. Kipling v. Flex Ltd.,
No. 18-CV-02706-LHK, 2020 WL 7261314 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2020).
Plaintiff alleged that the company made misrepresentations
concerning a major contract to manufacture shoes for a shoe
company. The Court held that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
actionable misstatements or omissions and, because the Court had
already granted plaintiff an opportunity to replead in a prior
order, dismissed the case with prejudice.
The Court first explained that one challenged statement -- that a
contract with the shoe company "ha[d] been a great solution for us,
a great story for us" and that "[w]e have to drive significant
volume, which we're doing today" -- had been dismissed in the
Court's prior order as nonactionable puffery. Because reasonable
investors "do not rely on vague statements of optimism like 'good,'
'well-regarded,' or other feel good monikers," and that a "'great
story' of 'driv[ing] significant volume' is a paradigmatically
vague statement of optimism," the Court reaffirmed that the
statement was not actionable. Id. at *9.
The Court next assessed plaintiff's allegations, which were based
on information provided by seven confidential witnesses, that the
company made false statements regarding the profitability of the
manufacturing contract. Id. at *10. The Court rejected the
reliability and import of the witnesses' statements on various
grounds, concluding that "none . . . [was] indicative of the
falsity of the profitability [s]tatements." Id. at *12. As to
certain witnesses, the Court determined that their statements were
"vague hearsay" because they did not specify who supplied the
confidential witnesses with the alleged information, any dates or
details of the discussions in which that information was provided,
or how the colleagues who allegedly supplied the information knew
that information in the first instance. Id. at *11. Plaintiff
contended that these witnesses had personal knowledge by virtue of
having attended corporate meetings, but the Court observed that
there was no allegation that those meetings involved discussions of
the company missing its production projections, either generally or
with respect to the contract in question. Id. For other witnesses,
the Court found their testimony unreliable because they had never
done any work in connection with the contract at issue. Id. The
Court also determined that many of the witnesses' statements were
unreliably vague, including a witness who failed to detail which
specific production metrics were not met and departed the company
before certain challenged statements were made. Id. With regard to
other confidential witness statements, the Court determined that
they only described "operational difficulties," which did not
necessarily render the profitability statements false. Id. at
*12-14.
The Court also concluded that plaintiff failed to adequately allege
falsity with respect to challenged statements not related to
profitability. Id. *15. Plaintiff alleged that the company's
allegedly undisclosed operational difficulties rendered misleading
statements that the company was "accelerating our investments" in
the project "on the back of early automation successes" and that
the company was "starting to get early successes around some of the
design engagements that we're having." Id. But the Court determined
that the mere existence of operational problems did not mean the
company did not have "early successes." Id. The Court further
observed that certain allegations by confidential witnesses
actually "supported the veracity" of some of the challenged
statements, because they suggested that the company initially had
met its production metrics before those metrics fell off later in
time. Id. The Court also emphasized, as it had in a prior order,
that the company had disclosed "sweeping risks to the viability" of
the contract, including that the contract concerned a "new product
category and we're very new to it." Id. at *17.
Because the Court determined that further amendment would be
futile, and that plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies
highlighted in the Court's prior order, the Court dismissed the
action with prejudice. Id. at *18. [GN]
FLORIDA POWER: Broward Firms Allowed to Join Water Pipe Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
local10.com reports that for two months, Florida Power & Light and
an attorney for several Broward County businesses have been going
back and forth in mediation trying to resolve a case without having
to go to trial.
The case stems from an incident in the summer of 2019 when several
cities were without water service due to an FPL contractor breaking
a water pipe.
But the back and forth mediation has not gone well, so now it will
be more than 9,000 businesses fighting against FPL.
"They just do not want to resolve this case," attorney Adam
Moskowitz said.
Moskowitz represents businesses who were forced to close for at
least two days because of the broken water pipe.
A judge granted an order, allowing thousands of Broward County
businesses to join a class action lawsuit against FPL.
"We are going to send out 9,000 notices now," Moskowitz said. "If
you're a business in Broward, look out for that notice, start to
gather all the records you have to your damages."
Moskowitz said an unlicensed FPL subcontractor repairing electric
lines in July 2019 hit a water main while drilling near Fort
Lauderdale Executive Airport.
Water had to be shut off for two days, and no water meant fire
sprinkler systems didn't work and restaurant dishwashers couldn't
sanitize.
Stores, restaurants, office buildings and hotels were forced to
close and evacuate and Fort Lauderdale's mayor declared a state of
emergency.
Moskowitz said FPL refuses to take responsibility even though they
and their subcontractor are insured.
"They are blaming the other contractors," he said. "They are
blaming the city of Fort Lauderdale, but nobody hit the water pipe
besides these people."
Jimmy Facciolo is the owner of Cafe Europa on Las Olas Boulevard
and said he likely lost $10,000 due to the incident.
"We lost about two days' worth of revenue," he said. "I'm surprised
that this action has gotten this far because it is very difficult
to sue FPL."
The Marriott Harbor Beach, Riverside Hotel, Rocco's Tacos, Press
and Grind Café and a law office are already part of the lawsuit.
"I think we have $2 million in damages for just those named
plaintiffs," Moskowitz said. "Imagine what the damages will be for
9,200 businesses, and we'll see our day in court against FPL."
FPL is appealing the judge's order granting the class action
lawsuit. A representative from FPL told Local 10 News that they
would not comment on pending litigation. [GN]
FYRE FESTIVAL: Ticket-Buyer Wants Court to Reconsider Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that the
ticket-buyer leading one of the original Fyre Festival lawsuits has
asked a US court to reconsider his bid to make the litigation a
class action. Or, if the judge won't reconsider, that another
ticket-buyer be allowed to become lead plaintiff on the case.
The disastrous Fyre Festival led to a flurry of litigation, of
course, as well as the criminal action that resulted in the event's
founder Billy McFarland being jailed.
Daniel Jung sued the Fyre company and McFarland pretty much as soon
as the infamous festival collapsed at the end of April 2017. That
litigation has been slowly working its way through the system ever
since. Jung wanted class action status for his lawsuit, so that
other ticket-buyers could benefit from any successful outcome.
But the judge overseeing the case recently declined to classify the
litigation as a class action. That was partly based on the fact
that Jung currently resides in the Netherlands leading to concerns
he couldn't "adequately monitor and direct counsel" on behalf of
the proposed class.
Judge P Kevin Castle also said that the case centred on
ticket-holders making buying decisions based on marketing
communications put out by McFarland and his company. However, it
was not certain that all class members had seen or acted upon the
same marketing messages.
In a new legal filing, Jung argues that Castle's decision was based
on some misunderstandings. First, while he is currently in the
Netherlands, that's a temporary thing and he plans to return to the
US once the COVID pandemic subsides. Plus, despite being abroad, he
has continued to actively engage with the legal process.
As for what unites the class, Jung adds that he relied upon Fyre
Festival's social media marketing and that -- while it's true
different ticket-buyers may have seen and acted upon different
specific messages -- the class is united in having been influenced
by the event's social activity. And that should be sufficient to
count as 'typicality', ie that Jung's claims are typical of the
class he seeks to represent.
The new legal filing states: "[While] it would be impossible to
pinpoint every plaintiffs' specific advertisement they saw that
induced them into purchasing their ticket . . . courts have agreed
that 'minor variations' in the fact patterns do not preclude
typicality, nor should defendants be rewarded for a common scheme
that was successfully executed because of the slight variations
made".
That said, if Castle is still not convinced, the lawyers leading
the case have requested that they be able to change the lead
plaintiff on the lawsuit, switching to a ticket-buyer that would
satisfy the judge's requirements.
Castle also recently declined Jung's motion for a default judgement
in his favour. The new legal filing also requests a rethink on that
point too. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Suit Over Defective Infotainment Systems
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Mceachern at gmauthority.com reports that a law firm in
California says it has filed a class-action lawsuit against General
Motors on behalf of purchasers and lessees of vehicles that were
allegedly shipped with defective infotainment systems.
The lawsuit, filed by San Diego-based firm Finkelstein & Krinsk
LLP, asserts that GM was aware that the IOR seven-inch infotainment
system it used in certain vehicles was defective and did not
disclose that information to purchasers and lessees of affected
models at the time of the transaction. The infotainment system is
known to "suddenly and unexpectedly" ramp to the maximum volume and
will "occasionally go completely black or reboot while the vehicle
is being operated." Additionally, the rearview camera image display
may continue to display, or go black, after the vehicle has been
shifted from reverse to drive.
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP claims the following vehicles with the IOR
seven-inch infotainment system are affected by this problem:
2018-2020 Chevrolet Colorado
2020 Chevrolet Blazer
2018-2020 Chevrolet Equinox
2020 Chevrolet Camaro
2018-2020 Chevrolet Silverado
2020 Chevrolet Sonic
2018-2020 GMC Canyon
2020 Chevrolet Trax
2018-2020 GMC Sierra
2020 GMC Terrain
The lawsuit also indicates GM issued a software update for the IOR
seven-Inch infotainment system in October of this year and again in
November, although these updates "only exacerbated the issues
associated with the alleged defect."
This isn't the only class-action lawsuit that has been filed over
alleged defects with the IOR seven-inch infotainment system. A
similar suit was filed in Florida in September, which also alleged
the system's audio will randomly spike to max volume and experience
other operational bugs and issues. That suit also said that GM
dealers refuse to replace or repair affected infotainment systems
and that the automaker will not issue a recall over it, either.
The Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP suit is a nationwide suit that
involves anyone who purchased or leased any of the affected
vehicles new from a GM dealership. [GN]
H & H WHOLESALE: Northshore Pharmacy Sues Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
NORTHSHORE PHARMACY d/b/a THOMPSON'S SERV U PHARMACY, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H & H
WHOLESALE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01900-LA
(E.D. Wis., December 23, 2020) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's transmission of unsolicited
advertisements to the Plaintiff's ink-and-paper facsimile machine
using an automatic telephone dialing system. The Plaintiff did not
give the Defendant prior express consent or permission to receive
such advertisements. The Defendant did not and does not have prior
existing business relationship with the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed by the acts of
Defendant by causing them to waste time checking the Defendant's
unwanted faxes that would have spent on their business activities
and to lose paper, toner, and ink consumed in the printing of those
faxes.
Northshore Pharmacy, doing business as Thompson's Serv U Pharmacy,
is a pharmacy located in Shorewood, Wisconsin.
H & H Wholesale Services, Inc., is a provider of supplies to
pharmacies, nursing homes, home care agencies and other medical
supply companies, headquartered in Troy, Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Lueder, Esq.
HANSEN REYNOLDS LLC
301 N Broadway, Suite 400
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Telephone: (414) 455-7676
Facsimile: (414) 273-8476
E-mail: mlueder@hansenreynolds.com
- and –
Anthony Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (617) 485-0018
Facsimile: (508) 318-8100
E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com
- and –
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION: Hicks Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSH HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 8:20-cv-00510-BCB-MDN (D. Neb., December 15, 2020) brings
this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an hourly-paid
employee from May 2015 until October 2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated hourly paid employees regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per week throughout their tenure with the Defendant. Although
they were paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
the hours they worked over 40 in a workweek, the Defendant did not
include the bonuses that were paid to them in their regular rates
when calculating their overtime pay. As a result, the Defendant
failed to properly paid the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees' overtime compensation at one and one-half time their
regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40 in a
workweek.
Hawkins Construction Company owns and operates a construction
company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Parkway, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS: Turizo Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLAKE TURIZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHFUND SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-20-021118 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., December 16, 2020) is
a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff received unsolicited text messages on his cellular
telephone number ending in 9685 from the Defendant on or about
November 25, 2020, November 26, 2020, and December 10, 2020. The
Defendant allegedly engages in unsolicited text messaging with no
regard for consumers' privacy rights to promote its health
insurance plans and/or health insurance services. The Plaintiff
asserts that he has never provided his express written consent to
be contacted by the Defendant using an automatic telephone dialing
system, and he has never had any type of business relationship with
the Defendant nor has he disclose his cellular telephone number to
the Defendant.
According to the complaint, the unsolicited text messages of the
Defendant has caused harm to the Plaintiff, including invasion of
his privacy and annoyance, as well as inconvenience and disruption
to his daily life.
Healthfund Solutions, LLC offers health insurance plans and
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and –
Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
110 SE 6th St., Suite 1744
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Tel: (954) 628-5793
E-mail: jibrael@jibraellaw.com
HIGHMARK BCBSD: Walker TCPA Class Suit Goes to W.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CHRISTOPHER JAMES WALKER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. HIGHMARK BCBSD HEALTH OPTIONS,
INC., Case No. 20-012151, was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-01975-CCW to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling the Plaintiff's
cellular telephone using a prerecorded or artificial voice message
without prior consent.
Highmark BCBSD Health Options, Inc. is healthcare services provider
with its headquarters located at 800 Delaware Avenue, Wilmington,
Delaware. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Jason E. Hazlewood, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2716
Telephone: (412) 288-3131
Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
E-mail: jhazlewood@reedsmith.com
HYPERSPRING LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Waldecker Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WALDECKER, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HYPERSPRING, LLC d/b/a GSE HYPERSPRING, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01948-MJH (W.D. Penn., December 15, 2020) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant
for its alleged illegal and uniform employment policy in violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as an hourly-paid staff
augmentation from approximately January 2018 through May 2019.
The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40
hours in a workweek, the Defendant paid him and other similarly
situated employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked,
including those worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek.
As a result of the Defendant's "straight time for overtime" scheme,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were not paid
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked over 40
in a workweek.
Hyperspring, LLC d/b/a GSE Hyperspring is a professional services
firm that provides training program development and delivery,
specialized operations and engineering personnel to the commercial
utilities and engineering firms. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Taylor A. Jones, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 352-1100
Fax: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
tjones@mybackwages.com
- and –
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 877-8788
Fax: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and –
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Tel: (412) 766-1455
Fax: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
INMATE SERVICES: Court Tosses Class Cert. Bid in Stearns
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANZEL L. STEARNS, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. INMATE SERVICES
CORPORATION, ET AL., Case Nos. 3:16-CV-00339-BRW-JJV,
3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR, 3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD (E.D. Ark.), the Hon.
Judge Billy Roy Wilson approved and adopted, in all respects, the
Partial Recommended Disposition (PRD) submitted by United States
Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe.
Judge Wilson held that the Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification is DENIED as to Case No. 3:16-cv-00339-BRW-JJV and
DISMISSED as premature as to Case No. 3:19-CV-00100-KGB-JTR and
Case No. 3:19-CV-00121-KGB-BD.
According to Judge Wilson, the Plaintiff's objections are
inaccurate and are unnecessarily strident.
The Plaintiff did not object to the PRD's finding that there was no
typicality within the class. "That concession alone is enough to
warrant denial of the Motion for Class Certification," Judge Wilson
opined.
The Court held that the proposed class of "all inmates transported
by Inmate Services" is too vague. Additionally, the phrase
"deprived of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities"
is not a class definition.
"As the PRD correctly (and thoroughly) points out, the potential
claims vary too much to allow for class certification. Essentially
every transport would be its own small class (assuming the alleged
actions occurred on every transport and to every person on that
particular transport). Additionally, Plaintiff's attempt to break
the class down into subclasses based on the length of travel does
not cure the problem," Judge Wilson added.
A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 7, 2020 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/375Y82l at no extra charge.[CC]
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Gross Law Firm Announces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the
following notice on behalf of shareholders in the following
publicly traded companies. Shareholders who purchased shares in the
following companies during the dates listed are encouraged to
contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment.
Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any
recovery.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICPT)
Investors Affected: September 28, 2019 - October 7, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants downplayed the true
scope and severity of safety concerns associated with the use of
Ocaliva (obeticholic acid ("OCA")), Intercept's lead product
candidate, in treating primary biliary cholangitis; (ii) the
foregoing increased the likelihood of a U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") investigation into Ocaliva's development,
thereby jeopardizing Ocaliva's continued marketability and the
sustainability of its sales; (iii) any purported benefits
associated with OCA's efficacy in treating nonalcoholic
steatohepatitis ("NASH") were outweighed by the risks of its use;
(iv) as a result, the FDA was unlikely to approve the Company's New
Drug Application for OCA in treating patients with liver fibrosis
due to NASH; and (v) as a result of all the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/intercept-pharmaceuticals-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=11748&from=1
HP Inc. (NYSE:HPQ)
Investors Affected: November 6, 2015 - June 21, 2016
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
HP Inc. The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted
in the sale of supplies to customers that did not need or want the
product in order to artificially increase revenues and profits; (b)
HP's channel inventory management and sales practices resulted in
the sale of supplies to customers outside of designated regions at
unsustainable discounts in order to artificially increase revenues
and profits; (c) HP's channel inventory management and sales
practices resulted in the sale of supplies at steep discounts to
customers to encourage those customers to sell the supplies further
down the supply channel, out of HP's inventory management metrics;
and (d) as a result of (a)-(c) above, defendants' statements about
HP's business condition and prospects were materially false and
misleading when made.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/hp-inc-loss-submission-form-2/?id=11748&from=1
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE:BSX)
Investors Affected: April 24, 2019 - November 16, 2020
A class action has commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in
Boston Scientific Corporation. The filed complaint alleges that
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the LOTUS Edge Aortic Valve
System's product delivery system was dysfunctional and threatened
the continued viability of the entire product line; (ii) as a
result, the Company had materially overstated the continued
commercial viability and profitability of the LOTUS Edge Aortic
Valve System; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Shareholders may find more information at
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/boston-scientific-corporation-loss-submission-form/?id=11748&from=1
The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere
to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate
citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who
incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the
omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial
inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (212) 537-9430
Fax: (833) 862-7770 [GN]
INTERFACE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 11 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
commenced on behalf of Interface, Inc. shareholders. Shareholders
interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline
listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be
found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
TILE Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/interface-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11652&wire=1
Interface, Inc. (NASDAQ:TILE)
TILE Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 2, 2018 -
September 28, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline : January 11, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/interface-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11652&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period,
Interface, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Interface had inadequate
disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over
financial reporting; (ii) consequently, Interface, inter alia,
reported artificially inflated income and earnings per share
("EPS") in 2015 and 2016; (iii) Interface and certain of its
employees were under investigation by the SEC with respect to the
foregoing issues since at least as early as November 2017, had
impeded the SEC's investigation, and downplayed the true scope of
the Company's wrongdoing and liability with respect to the SEC
investigation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
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 [GN]
INTUIT INC: Judge Refuses to Grant Class Action Settlement Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco has refused to grant
preliminary approval to a proposed $40 million class action
settlement that would have resolved allegations that the financial
software company Intuit steered millions of taxpayers into paying
for tax preparation services instead of receiving free help.
The judge has not yet issued an opinion explaining his one-sentence
Dec. 17 order denying the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement. But a newly-released transcript of the hearing that
preceded the order suggests Judge Breyer was concerned Intuit was
using the class action to dissuade its customers from pursuing
arbitration against the company – even though it was Intuit that
litigated before Judge Breyer and at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals to enforce the mandatory arbitration clause and class
waiver in its contract with consumers.
Judge Breyer was all too familiar with the backstory on Intuit's
enforcement of the arbitration provision. When the company moved in
2019 to compel arbitration after being hit with a class action
claiming that it duped customers into paying for tax services,
Judge Breyer denied the motion, finding that the company's online
contract didn't offer adequate notice to consumers. In August, the
9th Circuit overturned his decision, effectively stripping class
counsel from Girard Sharp and Stueve Siegel Hanson of leverage in
negotiations of a class settlement.
In the meantime, as I've been reporting, the plaintiffs' firm
Keller Lenkner signed up more than 100,000 Intuit customers to file
individual demands for arbitration at the American Arbitration
Association. Intuit has tried all kinds of tactics to mitigate the
mass arbitration onslaught, including attacks on Keller Lenkner's
ethics and its client screening processes. Nevertheless, Intuit has
already paid $13 million in AAA arbitration fees and is facing
upcoming deadlines for another $23 million in fees over the next
several weeks.
Judge Breyer suggested at the Dec. 17 hearing on the proposed class
action settlement that Intuit has only itself to blame for its mass
arbitration predicament. "You knew what the rules of arbitration
were. You knew all these things. And you elected - you elected to
go to arbitration. And you fought fairly, vigorously, and it turns
out correctly, that you had this right to insist on arbitration,"
the judge told Intuit counsel Rodger Cole of Fenwick & West. "Now
you come in, when you see how it is unfolding, and say: 'Not so
fast … Now we want to turn and do something else.'"
Judge Breyer said Intuit's insistence on enforcing its arbitration
clause was "the petard." And now, he said, quoting Hamlet, the
company was being "hoisted by (its) own petard."
Even Intuit counsel Cole seemed to concede at the hearing that the
class action settlement was a response to pressure the company felt
from tens of thousands of demands for individual arbitration, and
the accompanying millions of dollars in AAA fees. "The game is that
by filing these arbitrations, and collecting clients on Facebook
and Twitter and other social media, the Keller firm is able to
threaten companies -- Intuit's not alone -- into paying $3,000 in
arbitration fees for a $100 claim," Cole told Judge Breyer. "What
we're trying to say now is: If that's the game you want to play,
then we're willing to give 950,000 -- maybe more -- people relief
instead of paying an extortion charge to avoid the AAA fees." (Cole
was referring to the anticipated 5% claims rate in the proposed
settlement. If the settlement had been approved, Intuit and class
counsel estimated that about 950,000 customers, of the more than 19
million people in the class, would receive an average of $28.)
An Intuit spokesman said in a statement that the company is
committed to free tax services for eligible taxpayers, did not
mislead its customers and had strong defenses in the class action.
Intuit agreed to the now-rejected settlement "to put this matter
behind us so the company can continue focusing on delivering for
our customers," he said. "Although the court has declined to
approve this settlement, Intuit will continue to be clear and fair
with our customers."
Class counsel Norman Siegel of Stueve Siegel reminded Judge Breyer
at the Dec. 17 hearing that the settlement called for millions of
people to receive notice that they may be eligible for free tax
prep services. Intuit, he said, agreed in the settlement to much
more robust disclosures than it would otherwise be required to
make. Siegel also said that negotiations with Intuit were under way
even before the 9th Circuit sided with Intuit on enforcement of the
arbitration clause, so it wasn't fair to insinuate that class
counsel agreed to a cheap deal because they had no leverage.
In an email statement, class counsel Daniel Girard said via email
that he and Siegel understood Judge Breyer's concern about Intuit's
initial pursuit of arbitration and subsequent resort to a class
action. "But our obligation is to the class as a whole, and we are
committed to finding a process to deliver the critical injunctive
relief to the class including providing needed transparency to
millions of Americans regarding the availability to file for free
through the Free File Program," Girard said. Class counsel, he
said, will either work with Intuit to revise the settlement or, if
that is not possible, will pursue injunctive relief in arbitration
before the AAA.
Based on the hearing transcript, Judge Breyer seems unlikely to
approve any settlement that includes onerous opt-out provisions
like those proposed in the deal he rejected. (Among them: Class
members who want to opt out must personally sign the opt-out form
in ink, not electronically, and cannot be opted out by their
counsel.) Intuit and class counsel pointed to other class action
settlements, including the NFL concussion litigation and claims by
farmers who blamed Syngenta's genetically-modified seeds for crop
losses, that have required class members to sign opt-out documents
in ink. But Judge Breyer seemed unpersuaded that consumers'
relatively small claims against Intuit demanded such elaborate
protections, especially because Intuit made it so easy for those
same consumers to click approval of the electronic contracts that
required them to arbitrate claims.
The now-rejected settlement would also have enjoined consumers from
proceeding with their individual arbitration cases unless and until
they formally opted out of the settlement. Keller Lenkner argued
that the injunction ran afoul of the Federal Arbitration Act. Judge
Breyer asked at the hearing if Intuit would agree to a settlement
without an injunction halting pending arbitrations, at least
temporarily. Intuit counsel Cole said the settlement would not go
forward without such an injunction.
One final point: Intuit, like many companies targeted in mass
arbitration campaigns by Keller Lenkner, asserted that the
plaintiffs' firm did not properly vet its thousands of clients,
filed unwarranted arbitration demands and may have committed
ethical breaches if the firm failed to offer individualized advice
to clients about whether they should accept or reject the class
action.
Judge Breyer pushed back at the hearing on those allegations. He
said Intuit had not provided evidence of "bogus" cases by Keller
Lenkner and told Intuit counsel Cole that the plaintiffs' firm is
entitled to advertise for clients.
"I don't know any bar rule that says: Excuse me, you can't use
social media. Or: Excuse me, you can't use DocuSign," the judge
said. "I'm of a different generation. Lawyers didn't advertise,
when I was a baby lawyer. Well, they sure do, now. And my guess is
that you don't, Mr. Cole. But in the plaintiffs' bar, they do. And
that's a way that is recognized and sanctioned."
We'll know more about why Judge Breyer rejected the Intuit proposed
settlement when he issues his opinion. But it seems clear that he
has joined the judicial resistance to companies that unilaterally
imposed arbitration on their workers and customers, then tried to
shut down those same workers and customers when they attempted to
enforce their contractual rights. [GN]
JERUSALEM BEDDING: Najera Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Laborers
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN NAJERA, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JERUSALEM BEDDING CORP., E.P.E
ENTERPRISE CORP., PIERO TEJADA MAGANA, and CHRISTINA ACEVEA, in
their individual and professional capacities, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-06224 (S.D.N.Y., December 23, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated laborers proper minimum
wages, failing to provide them overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failing to furnish wage
statements, failing to provide pay notices upon hiring and every
year thereafter, and failing to pay spread-of-hours compensation.
The Plaintiff worked as a laborer at Defendants' facilities located
at 103 Powell Street, Brooklyn, New York since February 2014
through June 25, 2020 and at 821 Oregon Avenue, Lithicum, Maryland
from May 2015 through approximately December 2015.
Jerusalem Bedding Corp. is a manufacturer of beddings, with its
principal place of business located at 103 Powell Street, Brooklyn,
New York.
E.P.E Enterprise Corp. is a freight shipping and trucking company,
with its principal place of business located at 103 Powell Street,
Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glendoval J. Stephens, Esq.
THE STEPHENS LAW FIRM PLLC
305 Broadway, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (212) 385-1400
Facsimile: (212) 385-1401
E-mail: firm@stephenslawny.com
JOYY INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of January 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in JOYY stock or
options between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, click here: www.faruqilaw.com/YY or
call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James Wilson directly at 877-247-4292
or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading minority and certified woman-owned
national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims
against JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:YY) and reminds
investors of the January 19, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead
plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed
against the Company.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live streaming
sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were bots; (3)
the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme
that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (4) the Company
overstated its cash reserves; (5) the Company's acquisition of BIGO
was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; (6) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On November 18, 2020, while the market was open, Muddy Waters
Research published a report alleging that JOYY, among other things,
had: (1) reported fraudulent revenue; (2) component businesses that
were a fraction of the size that it reports; and (3) acquired BIGO
as part of a scam that benefitted corporate insiders.
On this news, JOYY's ADRs fell $26.53 per share, or 26.4%, to close
at $73.66 per share on November 18, 2020, damaging investors.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding JOYY's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner. [GN]
JOYY INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on Dec. 23
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of JOYY Inc. ("JOYY" or "the "Company") (NASDAQ: YY)
between April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired JOYY securities
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than January 19, 2021. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.
JOYY investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact
Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the JOYY Class Litigation
JOYY, headquartered in Guangzhou, China, describes itself as a
global social media platform, offering users around the world a
uniquely engaging and immersive experience across various
video-based content categories, such as live streaming, short-form
videos and video communication. The Company was formerly known as
YY, Inc. and changed its name to JOYY, Inc. on December 20, 2019.
The action alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) JOYY overstated
its revenues from live streaming sources; (2) the majority of users
were bots; (3) the Company utilized these bots to effect a
round-tripping scheme that manufactured the appearance of revenues;
(4) the Company overstated its cash reserves; and (5) the Company's
acquisition of Bigo was designed to benefit corporate insiders.
On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters Capital ("Muddy Waters")
published a report entitled "YY: You Can't Make this Stuff Up.
Well…Actually You Can." According to the report, JOYY was "a
multibillion-dollar fraud" with "component businesses . . . a
fraction of the size it reports, and . . . reported user metrics,
revenues, and cash balances [that] are predominantly fraudulent."
Citing a "year-long investigation," Muddy Waters concluded that
JOYY "is about 90% fraudulent." Following this news, the price of
JOYY's American Depositary Receipts ("ADR") fell $26.53 per ADR, or
26.48%, to close at $73.66 per ADR on November 18, 2020.
About Lieff Cabraser
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich, is a nationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility.
The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."
For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. [GN]
JOYY INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of January 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY), between
April 28, 2016 and November 18, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), of the important January 19, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline
in the first filed securities class action lawsuit commenced by the
firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for JOYY investors under
the federal securities laws.
To join the JOYY class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1988.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) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (3) JOYY utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping scheme
that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (4) JOYY
overstated its cash reserves; (5) JOYY's acquisition of Bigo was
largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; 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 January
19, 2021. 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-1988.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.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm or on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm.
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]
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Promotion to Youth
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOENIX UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-09242-WHO (N.D. Cal., December 21,
2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence and violations of Arizona Public Nuisance Law and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen
designed an e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and
sustain addiction, but without the stigma associated with
cigarettes and promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL
Labs and other Defendants developed and implemented a marketing
scheme to mislead users into believing that JUUL products contained
less nicotine than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The
Defendant enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors
without ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation.
The Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized
campaigns on youth-oriented Websites and media and using
influencers and affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage
audience. The Defendants have successfully caused more young people
to start using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic
and public health crisis.
Phoenix Union High School District is a high school-only district
in Phoenix, Arizona.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Cartmell, Esq.
Jonathan P. Kieffer, Esq.
Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL LLP
4740 Grand Ave., Ste. 300
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 701-1100
Facsimile: (816) 531-2372
E-mail: tcartmell@wcllp.com
jpkieffer@wcllp.com
thudson@wcllp.com
- and –
Daniel R. Ortega, Jr., Esq.
ORTEGA LAW FIRM, P.C.
361 Coronado Road, Suite 101
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1525
Telephone: (602) 386-4455
E-mail: danny@ortegalaw.com
- and –
Jose de Jesus Rivera, Esq.
MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & McANALLY, P.C.
2800 North Central Avenue, Ste. 840
Phoenix, AZ 85004-1069
Telephone: (601) 266-5557
Facsimile: (602) 266-2223
E-mail: jrivera@mpfmlaw.com
- and –
Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
Brad Honnold, Esq.
GOZA & HONNOLD LLC
9500 Nall Ave., Ste. 400
Overland Park, KS 66207
Telephone: (913) 451-3433
E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com
bhonnold@gohonlaw.com
- and –
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW
METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
- and –
Rahul Ravipudi, Esq.
PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 700
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 477-1700
Facsimile: (310) 477-1699
E-mail: ravipudi@psblaw.com
- and –
John P. Fiske, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
11440 West Bernardo Court Suite 265
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 251-7424
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: jfiske@baronbudd.com
- and –
Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq.
WALKUP MELODIA KELLY & SCHOENBERGER, P.C.
650 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 617-1269
E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
K12 INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds Investors of Jan. 19 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the following publicly-traded
companies. You can review a copy of the Complaints by visiting the
links below or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz &
Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss, you can
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class
members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff can select
a law firm of its choice. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
K12 Inc. (NYSE: LRN)
Class Period: April 27, 2020 - September 18, 2020
Deadline: January 19, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/lrn
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructure, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(2) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer systems; (3) K12 was unable
to provide the necessary levels of administrative support and
training to teachers, students, and parents; (4) and K12's officers
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.
JOYY Inc. (NASDAQ: YY)
Class Period: April 28, 2016 - November 18, 2020
Deadline: January 19, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/yy
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) JOYY dramatically overstated its revenues from live
streaming sources; (2) the majority of users at any given time were
bots; (2) the Company utilized these bots to effect a roundtripping
scheme that manufactured the false appearance of revenues; (3) the
Company overstated its cash reserves; (4) the Company's acquisition
of Bigo was largely contrived to benefit corporate insiders; and
(5) 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.
Berry Corporation (NASDAQ: BRY)
Class Period: July 26, 2018 - November 3, 2020
Deadline: January 21, 2021
For more info: www.bgandg.com/bry
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Berry had materially overstated its operational
efficiency and stability; (2) Berry's operational inefficiency and
instability would foreseeably necessitate operational improvements
that would disrupt the Company's productivity and increase costs;
(3) the foregoing would foreseeably negatively impact the Company's
revenues; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents and the
Company's public statements were materially false and/or misleading
and failed to state information required to be stated therein.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
K12 INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of January 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP on Dec. 23 disclosed that class action
lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following
publicly-traded companies. 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.
LRN Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11769&wire=1
QIWI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=11769&wire=1
KNDI Shareholders Click Here:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11769&wire=1
* ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BELOW *
K12 Inc. (NYSE:LRN)
LRN Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased April 27, 2020 -
September 18, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: January 19, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/k12inc-information-request-form?prid=11769&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, K12 Inc.
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) K12 lacked the technological capabilities,
infrastructures, and expertise to support the increased demand for
virtual and blended education necessitated by the global pandemic;
(ii) K12 lacked adequate cyberattack protocols and protections to
prevent the disabling of its computer system; (iii) K12 was unable
provide the necessary levels of administrative support and training
to teachers, students, and parents; and (iv) based on the
foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
and/or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted facts.
Qiwi plc (NASDAQ:QIWI)
QIWI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 28, 2019 -
December 9, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/qiwi-plc-information-request-form?prid=11769&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Qiwi plc
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Qiwi's internal controls related to reporting
and record-keeping were ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central
Bank of Russia would impose a monetary fine upon the Company and
impose restrictions upon the Company's ability to make payments to
foreign merchants and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) as
a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false
and/or misleading at all relevant times.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:KNDI)
KNDI Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 15, 2019 -
November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
TO LEARN MORE, VISIT:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kandi-technologies-group-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=11769&wire=1
According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Kandi
Technologies Group, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi artificially
inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed related party
transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key customers
that indicated those customers did not have an arms length
relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's sales in the
past year had been to undisclosed related parties and/or parties
with such a close relationship and history with Kandi that it cast
doubt on the arms-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all
the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt
on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues and, in turn, have a
foreseeable negative impact on the Company's reputation and
valuation; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the
court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Dec. 22 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. from March 15, 2019
through November 27, 2020 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased Kandi securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Kandi Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through
undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arms length relationship with Kandi; (2) the majority
of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related
parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history
with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues
and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's
reputation and valuation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled: "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed
Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S.
Investors." Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's
factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a
dozen former employees and business partners, and review of
numerous litigation documents and international public records,"
the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales
over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report
also alleged that "[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it
cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]"
Following publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock price
fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share on
November 30, 2020.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than February 9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased Kandi securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/kanditechnologiesgroupinc-kndi-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-337/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
https://www.bernlieb.com
Contact Information:
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 9 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Kandi Technologies Group,
Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI)
Class Period: March 15, 2019 to November 27, 2020
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: February 9, 2021
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published
a report entitled "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed
Company Used Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S.
Investors". Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi's
factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a
dozen former employees and business partners, and review of
numerous litigation documents and international public records",
the Hindenburg report asserted that almost 64% of Kandi's sales
over the year have been to undisclosed related parties. The report
also alleged that "[Kandi] has consistently booked revenue it
cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue[.]"
Following the publication of the Hindenburg report, Kandi's stock
price fell $3.86 per share, or 28.34%, to close at $9.76 per share
on November 30, 2020.
The complaint, filed on December 11, 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) Kandi
artificially inflated its reported revenues through undisclosed
related party transactions, or otherwise had relationships with key
customers that indicated those customers did not have an
arms-length relationship with Kandi; (ii) the majority of Kandi's
sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related parties
and/or parties with such a close relationship and history with
Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; (iii) all the foregoing, once revealed, was
foreseeably likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's
reported revenues and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact
on the Company's reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the Kandi class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/KNDI
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.
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]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Announces Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Eastern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:
KNDI) securities between March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Valdés v.
Kandi Technologies Group, Inc., No. 20-cv-06042, and is assigned to
Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall. The Kandi Technologies class action
lawsuit charges Kandi Technologies and certain of its executives
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Kandi Technologies securities during the
Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Kandi
Technologies 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 Kandi Technologies class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Kandi Technologies class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Kandi
Technologies class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as
lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Kandi
Technologies class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your
rights regarding the Kandi Technologies class action lawsuit,
please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer
Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via
e-mail at jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Kandi Technologies class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than February 9, 2021.
Headquartered in the People's Republic of China, Kandi
Technologies, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures, and commercializes electric vehicle ("EV") products
and parts and off-road vehicles in China and internationally.
The Kandi Technologies class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Kandi
Technologies artificially inflated its reported revenues through
undisclosed related-party transactions or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arm's-length relationship with Kandi Technologies; (ii)
the majority of Kandi Technologies' sales in the past year had been
to undisclosed related parties and/or parties with such a close
relationship and history with Kandi Technologies that it cast doubt
on the arm's-length nature of their relationship; (iii) all the
foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably likely to cast doubt on
the validity of Kandi Technologies' reported revenues and, in turn,
have a foreseeable negative impact on Kandi Technologies'
reputation and valuation; and (iv) as a result, Kandi Technologies'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On November 30, 2020, Hindenburg Research published a report
entitled "Kandi: How This China-Based NASDAQ-Listed Company Used
Fake Sales, EV Hype to Nab $160 Million From U.S. Investors."
Citing "extensive on-the-ground inspection at Kandi [Technologies']
factories and customer locations in China, interviews with over a
dozen former employees and business partners, and review of
numerous litigation documents and international public records,"
Hindenburg asserted that almost 64% of Kandi Technologies' sales
over the year had been to undisclosed related parties. Hindenburg
also alleged that "[Kandi Technologies] ha[d] consistently booked
revenue it cannot collect, a classic hallmark of fake revenue." On
this news, Kandi Technologies' stock price fell more than 28%,
damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900
jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
KANDI TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen Law Reminds of February 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Kandi Technologies Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KNDI) between
March 15, 2019 and November 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Kandi investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Kandi class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1998.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.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Kandi artificially inflated its reported revenues through
undisclosed related party transactions, or otherwise had
relationships with key customers that indicated those customers did
not have an arms-length relationship with Kandi; (2) the majority
of Kandi's sales in the past year had been to undisclosed related
parties and/or parties with such a close relationship and history
with Kandi that it cast doubt on the arms-length nature of their
relationship; (3) all the foregoing, once revealed, was foreseeably
likely to cast doubt on the validity of Kandi's reported revenues
and, in turn, have a foreseeable negative impact on the Company's
reputation and valuation; and (4) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. According to the suit, these true details were disclosed by
a market research firm.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
9, 2021. 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-1998.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.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
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]
KOCH FOODS: Haff Poultry Antitrust Suit Moved to E.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HAFF POULTRY, INC.; NANCY BUTLER; JOHNNY
UPCHURCH; JONATHAN WALTERS; MYLES B. WEAVER; MELISSA WEAVER, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KOCH
FOODS, INC.; KOCH MEAT CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH POULTRY CO.; SANDERSON
FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION); SANDERSON
FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION); and SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
(PRODUCTION DIVISION), Case No. 7:18-cv-00031, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on
December 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 6:20-cv-00478-RJS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act by entering into anticompetitive agreements,
including illegally sharing detailed data on broiler chicken grower
compensation with one another, with the purpose and effect of
fixing, maintaining, and/or stabilizing grower compensation below
competitive levels.
Haff Poultry, Inc. is a poultry producer in Hudson, Oklahoma.
Koch Foods, Inc. is a food processor and distributor headquartered
in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Koch Meat Co., Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry Co., is a food processor
and distributor headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry producer headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Larry S. McDevitt, Esq.
David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
11 N. Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: (828) 258-2991
Facsimile: (828) 257-2767
E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
- and –
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
Samantha S. Derksen, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
sderksen@hausfeld.com
- and –
Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
325 Chestnut St., Suite 325
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 985-3270
Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
E-mail: gsmith@hausfeld.com
- and –
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Patrick F. Madden, Esq.
Christina Black, Esq.
BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
pmadden@bm.net
cblack@bm.net
- and –
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
2001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 559-9745
E-mail: dwalker@bm.net
- and –
Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
HEINS MILLS &OLSON, PLC
310 Clifton Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Telephone: (612) 338-4605
Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
- and –
Warren T. Burns, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
500 North Akard, Suite 2810
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 904-4551
E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
- and –
Gregory Davis, Esq.
DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
7031 Halcyon Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
Telephone: (334) 832-9080
Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
E-mail: gldavis@knology.net
- and –
Charles D. Gabriel, Esq.
CHALMERS, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
North Fulton Satellite Office
5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 251
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Telephone: (678) 735-5903
Facsimile: (678) 735-5905
E-mail: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com
- and –
Harlan Hentges, Esq.
HENTGES & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
102 Thatcher Street
Edmond, OK 73034
Telephone: (405) 340-6554
Facsimile: (405) 340-6562
- and –
John C. Whitfield, Esq.
Caroline Taylor, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
19 North Main Street
Madisonville, KY 42431
Telephone: (270) 821-0656
E-mail: john@wbmllp.com
caroline@wbmllp.com
- and –
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
5101 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Ste. 305
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 429-2290
Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
jgoldstein@wbmllp.com
- and –
J. Dudley Butler, Esq.
BUTLER FARM & RANGE LAW GROUP, PLLC
499-A Breakwater Dr.
Benton, MS 39039
Telephone: (662) 673-0091
Facsimile: (662) 673-0091
E-mail: jdb@farmandranchlaw.com
- and –
Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20016
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
E-mail: Danielc@cuneolaw.com
- and –
David S. Muraskin, Esq.
PUBLIC JUSTICE, PC
1620 L St. NW, Suite 630
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 861-5245
Facsimile: (202) 232-7203
E-mail: dmuraskin@publicjustice.net
- and –
M. David Riggs, Esq.
Donald M Bingham, Esq.
RIGGS ABNEY NEAL TURPEN ORBISON & LEWIS
502 W. Sixth St.
Tulsa, OK 74119
Telephone: (918) 699-8914
Facsimile: (918) 587-9708
E-mail: driggs@riggsabney.com
don_bingham@riggsabney.com
- and –
Hollis Salzman, Esq.
Kellie Lerner, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, Suite 3600
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 980-7400
Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
KLerner@RobinsKaplan.com
- and –
Aaron Sheanin, Esq.
ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
Mountain View, CA 94040
Telephone: (650) 784-4040
Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
E-mail: ASheanin@RobinsKaplan.com
- and –
M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF M. STEPHEN DAMPIER, P.C.
55 N. Section St.
P.O. Box 161
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 929-0900
Facsimile: (251) 929-0800
E-mail: dampier.steve@gmail.com
LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE: Leeper Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARY LEEPER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTHOUSE INSURANCE GROUP LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-02821 (N.D. Ohio, December 22, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act by sending telemarketing text messages to
consumers without consent, including the Plaintiff and those who
registered their phone numbers on the National Do Not Call registry
and who expressly requested that the text messages to stop.
Lighthouse Insurance Group LLC is a provider of insurance agent and
broker services, headquartered in Independence, Cuyahoga County,
Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William McAllum Harrelson, II, Esq.
HARRELSON & HARRELSON LLP
9 West Water Street
Troy, OH 45373
Telephone: (937) 552-9400
Facsimile: (937) 552-9361
E-mail: Will@HarrelsonLLP.com
- and –
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Stephen A. Klein, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
sklein@woodrowpeluso.com
LOANCARE LLC: North Carolina Court Narrows Claims in Brown Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Jamalla Brown, Plaintiff v. Loancare, LLC, Lakeview
Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-00280-FDW-DSC
(W.D.N.C.), Judge Frank D. Whitney of the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina granted in part and denied
in part Defendant Loancare's Motion to Dismiss.
The Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 14, 2020. She brings her
claims as a putative class action against Defendants Lakeview and
Defendant Loancare. She asserts several causes of action against
the Defendants, all arising out of what she contends is an unlawful
"Pay-to-Pay" service fee arrangement.
In early 2019, the Plaintiff obtained a mortgage from Fairway
Independent Mortgage Corporation, which is secured by her home in
Belmont, North Carolina. Defendant Lakeview allegedly acquired the
servicing rights to the mortgage shortly after the Plaintiff closed
on her loan. Defendant Loancare is a mortgage subservicer and
allegedly collects payments, including the "Pay-to-Pay" fees at
issue here, on behalf of Defendant Lakeview.
The Plaintiff alleges she timely pays her mortgage payments each
month and occasionally makes her payments online. She asserts she
was charged a $10 fee for each mortgage payment made online and
alleges the Defendants profited on these fees in violation of
existing law. The Plaintiff alleges these "Pay-to-Pay" fees are
neither authorized by her Mortgage Agreement, nor otherwise
permitted by law.
Accordingly, she argues, the Defendants have violated the North
Carolina Debt Collection Act ("NCDCA")(Count I), the North Carolina
Mortgage Debt Collection and Servicing Act ("NCMDCSA" or
"MDSCA")(COUNT II), and/or the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive
Trade Practices Act ("NCUDTPA")(Count III). She also alleges
Defendants are liable for breach of contract (Count IV) or
alternatively, unjust enrichment (Count V).
Defendant Loancare filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 2, 2020,
arguing the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for each cause of
action. Loancare argues more generally that the filed rate doctrine
requires dismissal of the Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety.
It argues the "Pay-to-Pay" fees are disclosed to the North Carolina
Office of the Commissioner of Banks ("NCOCB") and because they have
not been disapproved, the fees are, thus, approved and protected by
the doctrine.
Judge Whitney granted in part and denied in part Defendant
Loancare's Motion to Dismiss. He granted the Motion with respect
to Counts I, III, IV, and V, and denied with respect to Count II.
With respect to Count I, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has not
alleged Defendant Loancare has sought any past due mortgage
payments; to the contrary, the Plaintiff has alleged she has never
been in default on her mortgage payments. Thus, because the
Plaintiff was not in default when she made mortgage payments online
or via phone, Defendant Loancare was not engaged in "debt
collection" when servicing the Plaintiff's loans in the manner
alleged. The Plaintiff's allegations regarding charging a service
fee for an optional method of payment fail to plausibly suggest the
practice is unfair or deceptive. For these reasons, he concludes
the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief under the
NCDCA.
With respect to Count II, the Judge agrees with Defendant
Loancare's assertion that the NCMDCSA provides a "safe harbor"
provision, which allows mortgage servicers to compensate the
borrower or otherwise correct any alleged violation of the Act if
the mortgage servicer did not act intentionally or in bad faith.
However, the Plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of N.C.
Gen. Stat. Section 45-91(4) because she has alleged bad faith
and/or intentional conduct on the part of the Defendants, thus the
applicability of the safe harbor provision is not appropriate to
resolve at this stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Judge
denied the Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's NCMDCSA claim.
With respect to Count III, the Judge holds that the Plaintiff's
UDTPA claim also fails. The Plaintiff here has not alleged any
substantial or aggravating circumstances sufficient to allege a
violation of the NCUDTPA. Additionally, she exercised her option
to pay her mortgage either by phone or online. It is not plausible
that charging a fee for an optional service, particularly when the
Plaintiff had alternative means of payment, is unfair or deceptive.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the
NCUDTPA against Defendant Loancare.
With respect to Count IV, the Judge finds that the Plaintiff has
simply alleged Defendant Loancare is "bound as assignee" to the
mortgage because it is a subservicer of the mortgage loan.
However, the allegation does not explain how Loancare was assigned
the rights and obligations of the Mortgage Agreement. An
allegation that a defendant services or subservices a mortgage loan
agreement is not, without more, sufficient to bind the servicer to
the terms of the agreement. Because the Plaintiff has not pled
facts plausibly alleging the existence of a valid assignment of the
Mortgage Agreement to Defendant Loancare, she has failed to state a
claim for breach of contract against Defendant Loancare.
Finally, the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for unjust
enrichment against Defendant Loancare. She alleges Defendant
Loancare's "retention" of the "Pay-to-Pay" fees was unjust because
it had no right to charge such fees. However, her Complaint makes
clear she received the benefit of the services for which she
paid--that is, timely payment of her mortgage--which contradicts
any allegation that the Defendant's retention of the fees is
somehow "unjust."
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3mNqdjI from Leagle.com.
MANI & PEDI: Lee Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Nail Salon Staff
---------------------------------------------------------------
NEUNG KI LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MANI & PEDI INC. and KUMWOO PARK,
Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-10787 (S.D.N.Y., December 21, 2020) is
a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to
compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours
in a workweek, failing to provide notice of pay rate, and failing
to provide pay stub.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee at the Defendants'
nail salon in New York starting January 21, 2018.
Mani & Pedi Inc. is a nail salon owner and operator with its
principal place of business located at 490 Piermont Avenue,
Piermont, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Errol C. Deans, Jr., Esq.
SONG LAW FIRM, LLC
400 Kelby Street, 7th Floor
Fort Lee, NJ 07024
Telephone: (201) 461-0031
Facsimile: (201) 461-0032
E-mail: edeans@songlawfirm.com
MASTERCARD: UK Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Rodin, Esq. -- mrodin@mofo.com -- Chiraag Shah, Esq. --
cshah@mofo.com -- and Laura Jane Steen, Esq. -- lsteen@mofo.com --
of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that
in the case of Mastercard v Merricks, the UK Supreme Court
confirmed the Certification Test for UK class actions brought in
respect of breaches of competition law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 11 December 2020, the UK Supreme Court handed down its highly
anticipated judgment in the case of Mastercard v Merricks. The case
concerned the certification procedure for US-style 'opt-out'
collective (class action) proceedings before the UK Competition
Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT"). Opt-out actions automatically treat
anyone who falls within the scope of the proposed class definition
as being a member of the class unless they explicitly opt-out or
withdraw. Opt-in actions, as the name suggests, require potential
claimants to expressly sign up to be a member of the class.
The claim against Mastercard was brought by Mr Merricks as a
follow-on damages claim (i.e., a claim based upon an existing
decision in 2007 by the European Commission (the "Commission") that
Mastercard had breached EU competition laws in relation to the
setting of interchange fees). Damages of c. £14 billion were
sought on behalf of an opt-out class of some 46.2 million UK
consumers.
The Supreme Court dismissed Mastercard's appeal and provided
further guidance on the legal threshold that must be met for the
CAT to certify a claim as collective proceedings. As a result, the
CAT will now re-consider Mr Merricks' application to have the claim
against Mastercard certified as opt-out collective proceedings and
whether the claim should be allowed to proceed on that basis.
UK OPT-OUT CLASS ACTIONS
Opt-out class actions are a relatively new development under
English law, introduced by amendments to the Competition Act 1998
(the "CA 1998") by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the "CRA 2015").
Opt-out proceedings may be brought by private parties (consumers or
businesses) or by authorised representatives on behalf of consumers
and businesses in collective proceedings before the CAT.
Under section 47B of the CA 1998, collective proceedings may only
progress if they are certified as such by the CAT and a collective
proceedings order ("CPO") has been issued. A CPO will only be
granted if the following requirements are met:
1. it is just and reasonable for the claimant to act as the class
representative (in this case Mr Merricks);
2. the individual claims must raise common issues of fact or law
that are suitable for inclusion in collective proceedings; and
3. the application for a CPO is brought on behalf of an
identifiable class of persons.
BACKGROUND TO MASTERCARD V MERRICKS
In December 2007, the Commission found that Mastercard was in
breach of EU competition law, specifically Article 101(1) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in relation to the
setting of multilateral interchange fees ("MIFs") in cross-border
card payment arrangements. MIFs are fees charged by a cardholder's
bank to a merchant's bank for each sales transaction made at the
merchant's outlet using a payment card (such as a Mastercard).
Between 1992 and 2008, these costs, which the Commission found to
be disproportionate, were passed onto consumers.
In September 2016, Mr Merricks applied to the CAT for a CPO on an
opt-out basis under the new regime. The application was made on
behalf of all individuals over the age of 16 who had been resident
in the UK for a continuous period of at least three months and who
had, between May 1992 and June 2008, purchased goods and services
from merchants that accepted Mastercard payments. Collective
damages were estimated at over £14 billion.
On 21 July 2017, the CAT dismissed Mr Merricks' application on the
basis that it did not satisfy the second limb of the test under the
CA 1998 (that the individual claims must raise common issues of
fact or law that are suitable for inclusion in collective
proceedings). Although the CAT was satisfied that the claims shared
common issues, it found that there was insufficient data to prove
and calculate the fees that resulted in higher costs incurred by
the consumers (i.e., to show the passing-on of the cost to the
consumers in the class). Further the CAT highlighted the difficulty
in identifying and calculating the loss attributable to each
individual, taking into account that each consumer must be restored
to their original position as if the breach had not occurred (this
is the governing principle of awarding damages according to the CAT
– although this does not appear in the CAT Rules of Procedure).
Accordingly, the CAT held that the individual claims were not
suitable for certification as collective proceedings and refused to
grant a CPO.
Mr Merricks appealed the CAT's ruling to the Court of Appeal and,
in April 2019, the Court of Appeal overturned the CAT's decision.
The Court of Appeal held that:
With respect to the CAT's position that there was insufficient data
to prove and calculate the higher cost of the transaction that had
been passed-on to the consumers in the class:
Demonstrating a general passing-on of the increased cost to
consumers was sufficient to meet the test of commonality of issues
required to obtain a CPO (in other words, it was not necessary to
assess the increased cost passed-on to each individual consumer).
At the certification stage (which is the stage Merricks reached at
the CAT), the CAT is only required to assess whether the
methodology proposed by the representative for calculating the
increased cost passed-on to consumers is capable of demonstrating
the loss to the group of consumers as a whole.
There should not be a mini-trial at the CPO stage of proceedings.
The proposed representative is not required to establish more than
a reasonably arguable case in order to obtain a CPO. The CAT should
not require the proposed representative to produce all the evidence
that would be relied upon at trial or to enter into a detailed
outline of the claims' probative value. The Court of Appeal held
that the CAT had considered and assessed the expert evidence before
it in a much more detailed way than it should have.
The assessment of certification of the claim is a continuing
process and the CAT can reassess the appropriateness of the class
action categorisation throughout the life of the case (i.e., this
is not the final chance for the CAT to assess the merits of the
claim for certification).
With respect to assessing the loss attributable to the class and
how it should be considered:
At the certification stage, the CAT need only be satisfied that the
claim is suitable for an aggregate award of damages and the
aggregate award of damages does not need to be distributed on a
compensatory basis. How the damages would be distributed in the
future was a matter for the trial judge to consider.
The Court of Appeal's judgment was seen as lowering the bar to
obtain a CPO as compared with the narrower approach previously
adopted by the CAT.
Mastercard sought and was granted permission to appeal the Court of
Appeal's judgment to the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT RULING
In a 3:2 judgment (more on that below), the Supreme Court dismissed
Mastercard's appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the CAT
had erred in law. The two main questions considered by the Supreme
Court were:
1. What is the legal test to certify claims as being eligible for
classification as collective proceedings?
2. What is the correct approach to take when considering the
distribution of an aggregate award when a party is applying for a
CPO?
Lord Briggs, who provided the lead judgment, set out five errors of
law in the CAT's decision:
1. The CAT failed to recognise the breadth of common issues in the
individual claims, specifically (1) the issue of overcharge to the
consumers, and (2) the issue of the interchange fees being passed
from the merchants to consumers.
2.Although the aggregation of damages is a relevant factor to take
into account when deciding whether to issue a CPO, the CAT
incorrectly considered it as a necessary condition to satisfy in
making its decision to grant a CPO and failed to take into account
other factors.
3. The CAT applied the wrong test when considering whether the
claims were "suitable" for collective proceedings in its
interpretation of section 47B of the CA 1998. The applicable test
of "relative suitability" poses the question of whether it is
preferable to have an aggregate award of damages in collective
proceedings or individual awards in multiple individual claims.
Either route would have presented the same difficulties in
quantifying loss suffered by each consumer.
4. The CAT was incorrect to assume that the lack of available data
to quantify loss was a good reason to refuse certification. The
Court advised that the CAT should do the "best it can" with the
data available and should not preclude a claim from being heard.
5. The CAT wrongly sought to apply the common law compensatory
principle, which requires an assessment of individual loss in an
aggregate damages case. However, section 47C of the CA 1998
expressly removed such requirement. In fact, the only requirement
is that the distribution of damages must be fair and reasonable.
HANDING DOWN OF THE JUDGMENT
As with all Supreme Court panels, the panel on the Mastercard v
Merricks case originally consisted of an odd number of Lords
Justice (five in this case). However, due to the sad and untimely
passing away of Lord Kerr in early December 2020, the judgment was
given by four Lords Justice. Although the Supreme Court ruling was
initially intended to be a 3:2 majority with Lord Briggs, Lord
Thomas and Lord Kerr in favour of the dismissal of Mastercard's
appeal, and Lord Sales and Lord Leggatt dissenting, Lord Kerr's
death effectively resulted in a 2:2 split. However, as was noted in
the judgment, Lord Kerr had made his position clear prior to his
passing and it was accepted that the judgment was a 3:2 majority
judgment in favour of Mr Merricks.
Although Lord Sales and Lord Leggatt gave a combined minority
judgment, they recognised they had the minority view and agreed to
support the dismissal of Mastercard's appeal. Had they formally
dissented, the case would have to be re-heard before a new Supreme
Court panel which would arguably not have been a just outcome, and
also would have resulted in significant further expense as well as
a further delay in receiving judgment.
COMMENTARY
The Mastercard case is the first case of its kind to be brought
before the Supreme Court and marks a significant development in the
UK competition class action landscape. The Supreme Court has
remitted Mr Merricks' application for a CPO back to the CAT for a
re-hearing. Certification of collective proceedings by a CPO is by
no means a determination of the merits of the claim. A full trial
is still required.
Interestingly, Lord Briggs did not criticise the CAT for conducting
a mini-trial at the CPO stage in this case. He noted that the
questioning and cross-examining of experts "both should and will be
a rare occurrence". This may mean that, whilst the CAT continues to
conduct some form of assessment at the CPO stage, it is unlikely to
be as extensive as was conducted at the first stage of this case.
As Lord Briggs noted, "it should not lightly be assumed that the
collective process imposes restrictions upon claimants as a class
which the law and rules of procedure for individual claims would
not impose". This is a clear statement by the Supreme Court that
the CAT should not view collective proceedings too narrowly. It
will be very interesting to see if the CAT heeds this guidance with
regard to the seven CPO applications currently pending before the
CAT, which will now all move forward.
It also remains to be seen whether the lower threshold set by the
Supreme Court will result in more CPOs being sought by claimant
representatives and whether the balance will now shift in favour of
opt-out as opposed to opt-in collective proceedings, with respect
to decisions of the Commission and the UK's Competition and Markets
Authority. It is also worth noting that, from 31 December 2020, new
decisions of the Commission will no longer be binding on UK
courts.
Stephanie Pong, London Trainee Solicitor, contributed to the
drafting of this alert. [GN]
MDL 2542: $31MM Settlement in Keurig Antitrust Suit Has Prelim. OK
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN SINGLE-SERVE COFFEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION, This Document Relates to the
Indirect-Purchaser Actions, Case No. 14-md-2542 (VSB)(S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York granted the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' unopposed request that the Court grants preliminary
approval of the parties' Settlement Agreement and Release.
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ("Plaintiffs" or the "IPPs") and
Defendant Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig" or "Defendant")
have settled this antitrust collective action for $31,000,000.
Judge Broderick also: (1) certifies the Settlement Class; (2)
appoints Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP as the
Settlement Class Counsel; (3) appoints the Plaintiffs as the
Settlement Class Representatives; (4) appoints JND Legal
Administration as the Claims Administrator; (5) appoints Signature
Bank N.A. as the escrow agent; (6) approves the program for notice;
and (7) appoints former U.S. District Court Judge Joseph J. Farnan
Jr. as a Special Master.
In early 2014, there were many actions filed in federal district
courts around the country alleging that Keurig engaged in unlawful
anticompetitive behavior. Among those suits were numerous actions
filed by individual indirect purchasers. On March 20, 2014, the
named plaintiff in one of the related cases moved the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to centralize all of the
cases in a single multidistrict litigation ("MDL") in the
District.
The proposed MDL encompassed three types of actions: direct
purchaser class actions, indirect purchaser class actions, and
individual actions by certain competitors of Keurig. Although the
Competitor Plaintiffs opposed centralization, the JPML concluded
that all of the related actions, including those filed by the
direct purchasers and indirect purchasers, raised virtually
identical factual questions concerning the conduct of Keurig. On
June 3, 2014, the JPML transferred these related actions to the
District and assigned the action to me for consolidated pretrial
proceedings as part of the MDL. On June 26, 2014, the interim
co-lead counsel for the Named Plaintiffs and proposed IPP class was
appointed.
On July 24, 2014, the IPPs filed a Consolidated Amended Indirect
Purchaser Class Action Complaint. They subsequently filed a Second
Amended Complaint on Feb. 11, 2015. These complaints alleged that
Keurig engaged in anticompetitive behavior in order to obtain an
illegal monopoly and maintain artificially high prices for its
K-Cup products, in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, and numerous state statutes.
On April 22, 2019, the Court granted the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the IPPs' claims under federal antitrust law, as well as
claims brought under antitrust laws of seven states. It denied the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the IPPs' claims brought under the
antitrust laws of 14 states and the District of Columbia. On April
24, 2019, the IPPs filed a motion for reconsideration, in part, of
the motion to dismiss. The Court denied that motion on June 25,
2019.
On June 21, 2019, the IPPs filed their Third Amended Complaint,
which realleged violations of federal antitrust laws and the
antitrust laws of several states. Since that time, the parties
have engaged in extensive discovery. On Sept. 30, 2020, the IPPs
filed their unopposed motion for preliminary approval of their
proposed settlement with the Defendant, with a memorandum of law,
three declarations, and accompanying exhibits. The IPPs and
Defendant Keurig have settled the antitrust collective action for
$31 million.
The Plaintiffs have requested to certify the following Settlement
Class: All individuals and entities in the United States and its
territories that purchased Keurig K-Cup Portion Packs from persons
other than Keurig and not for the purpose of resale, during the
period Sept. 7, 2010, to Aug. 14, 2020 (except for claims under
Mississippi law--which are for purchases during the period from
March 14, 2011, to Aug. 14, 2020, and Rhode Island law--which are
for purchases from July 15, 2013, to Aug. 14, 2020).
Having reviewed the Plaintiffs' submissions, including the proposed
Settlement Agreement and Release, Judge Broderick concludes that
the settlement agreement merits preliminary approval. He certified
the proposed class for settlement purposes only.
The Judge appointed (i) the firms of Kaplan Fox, Pearson Simon, and
Wolf Halderstein as the class counsel; (ii) the Plaintiffs as the
class representatives; (iii) JND as the Claims Administrator; and
(iv) Judge Farnan as the Special Master.
The settlement agreement calls for the Defendant to advance
$250,000 of the funds into an escrow account within 14 days of
preliminary approval of the settlement, while providing the rest of
the funds on Jan. 6, 2021. The Judge appointed Signature Bank N.A.
as the escrow agent for the agreement.
Finally, the Judge approved the Notice Plan proposed by the parties
as it constitutes the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and meets the requirements of due process.
Within 15 days of the date of the Order, the Defendant will provide
the Claims Administrator with the Rule 23 Class members and the
Collective Class members list and information as provided in the
Settlement Agreement. Within 15 days of the Defendant's provision
of the Rule 23 Class members and Collective Class members list and
information, the Claims Administrator will mail the Notices.
The Rule 23 Class Members will have 60 days from the date the
Notice is mailed to opt out of the settlement or object to it.
The Plaintiffs will file a motion for final approval of the
Settlement Agreement no later than 15 days before the fairness
hearing.
The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on June 4, 2021, at
10:00 a.m. The logistical details regarding the fairness hearing
will be placed on the docket at a later date.
If the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of
the Settlement Agreement, it will issue a Final Order and Judgment.
If no party appeals the Court's Final Order and Judgment, the
Effective Date of the settlement will be the date 30 days after
entry of such Order. If rehearing, reconsideration or appellate
review is sought, the Effective Date will be the day after all
appeals are resolved in favor of final approval.
The Claims Administrator will disburse settlement checks to the
Rule 23 Class members and the Collective Class members, the Class
Counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses to the Class Counsel, the
Service Awards, and the Settlement Administrator's fee as provided
in the Settlement Agreement.
The parties are directed to abide by all terms of the Settlement
Agreement.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/38slejf from Leagle.com.
Robert N. Kaplan -- rkaplan@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, New York, NY, Mark C. Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY, Clifford
H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,
in Sherman Oaks, California, Proposed Settlement Class Counsel.
George S. Cary -- gcary@cgsh.com -- Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP, Washington, DC, Wendelynne J. Newton --
wendelynne.newton@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Counsel for Defendant.
MID VALLEY: Vanderlaan Files FCRA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mid Valley Collection
Bureau, et al. The case is styled as Diana Vanderlaan, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Mid Valley Collection
Bureau, Law Offices of Christopher Stapleton, The Best Service
Company, Inc., Todd Shields, Donald Hopp, DOES 1 through 10
inclusive, Case No. 2:20-cv-11624 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 24, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Mid Valley Collection, Bureau was founded in 2010. Mid Valley
Collection, Bureau specializes in collection agency, except real
estate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
AMIR J. GOLDSTEIN LAW OFFICES
7304 Beverly Boulevard Suite 212
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (323) 937-0400
Fax: (866) 288-9194
Email: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Conway Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit
Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Paul Conway,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No.
4:20-cv-04355 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) --
https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad
range of assets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (347) 668-9326
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
MINERVA NEURO: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announces that a class action complaint has
been filed on behalf of shareholders of SPLK, NAK, and NERV. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the court by the
lead plaintiff deadline listed below. 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 take no
action, you may remain an absent class member.
To discuss the case below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV)
CLASS PERIOD: 5/15/2017-11/30/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 8, 2021
Throughout the class period Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the truth about the feedback received from the
FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b
study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and
was conducted solely outside of the United States; (iii) the
failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary
endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial
evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the Company's plan to use the
combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly
unlikely" to support the submission of an NDA; (v) reliance on
these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to
"substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate and
not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times
If you purchased Minerva securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Minerva Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. © 2019 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Robbins Geller Reminds of Feb. 8 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of purchasers of Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ:NERV)
common stock between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The case is captioned McCoy v. Minerva
Neurosciences, Inc., No. 20-cv-12176, and is assigned to Judge
George A. O'Toole, Jr. The Minerva class action lawsuit charges
Minerva and its Chief Executive Officer with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased Minerva common stock during the Class Period
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Minerva 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 Minerva class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the Minerva class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Minerva class action lawsuit is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff
of the Minerva class action lawsuit or have questions concerning
your rights regarding the Minerva class action lawsuit, please
provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of
Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Minerva class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than February
8, 2021.
Minerva is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
the development and commercialization of a portfolio of product
candidates to treat patients suffering from central nervous system
diseases. Minerva's lead product candidate, roluperidone (MIN-101),
is in development for the treatment of negative symptoms in
patients with schizophrenia. In October 2016, Minerva reported
positive results from a Phase 2b trial of roluperidone for this
treatment, asserting that the "[d]ata show continuous improvement
in negative symptoms, stable positive symptoms and extended safety
profile." Thereafter, on May 15, 2017, Minerva announced that it
would proceed to a Phase 3 clinical trial for roluperidone
following a successful "end-of-Phase 2" meeting with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA"). In doing so, Minerva's Chief
Executive Officer, defendant Rémy Luthringer, stated that "[o]ur
discussion with the [FDA] has helped to confirm our Phase 3 trial
design, which is similar to our previous Phase 2b trial design. We
believe that positive data from the Phase 3 trial, along with the
positive data from the Phase 2b trial, may form the basis for the
future submission of a New Drug Application for [roluperidone] with
the FDA."
The Minerva class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose: (i) the truth about the feedback received from
the FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (ii) that the
Phase 2b study did not use the commercial formulation of
roluperidone and was conducted solely outside of the United States;
(iii) that the failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and
key secondary endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting
substantial evidence of effectiveness; (iv) that Minerva's plan to
use the combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be
"highly unlikely" to support the submission of an NDA; (v) that
reliance on these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead
to "substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate
and not well controlled; and (vi) that, as a result, Minerva's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On May 29, 2020, Minerva released the results of its Phase 3
clinical trial, revealing that the studied "doses were not
statistically significantly different from placebo at Week 12 on
the primary endpoint . . . or the key secondary endpoint." On this
news, Minerva's stock price fell nearly 73%.
Then, on December 1, 2020, Minerva revealed that the "FDA advised
that the Phase 2b study is problematic because it did not use the
commercial formulation of roluperidone and was conducted solely
outside of the United States. In addition, FDA commented that the
Phase 3 study does not appear to be capable of supporting
substantial evidence of effectiveness . . . ." Indeed, the "FDA
cautioned that an NDA submission based on the current data from the
Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be highly unlikely to be filed
and that at a minimum, there would be substantial review issues due
to the lack of two adequate and well-controlled trials to support
efficacy claims for this indication." On this news, Minerva's stock
price fell an additional 25%, further damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law
firms representing investors in securities class action litigation.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of
the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For
seven consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has
ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top
law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders
and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller
attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered
tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond
securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins
Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance
reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors
worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by
courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading
lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor
more information.
Contacts:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
MONASH IVF: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Genetic Screening Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Cunningham, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that more than 100 women and men have begun a class action lawsuit
against Monash IVF following claims the national fertility
specialist may have inadvertently destroyed healthy embryos through
a faulty genetic screening test.
Documents were filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Dec. 23
against Monash IVF and the Adelaide Fertility Centre on behalf of
patients who attended the clinics between May last year and October
this year.
The patients and some of their partners are seeking tens of
millions of dollars in compensation, with some fearing they may
have been robbed of their chance of having children.
The documents, seen by The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, claim
Monash IVF and Adelaide Fertility Centre may have incorrectly
classified potentially healthy embryos as abnormal before
discarding them through a now-suspended non-invasive genetic
testing program.
The lawsuit comes amid revelations that new, non-invasive
preimplantation genetic testing technology used by the fertility
specialist is significantly less reliable than first thought.
The non-invasive PGT-A test was introduced nationally by Monash IVF
in May last year and was believed to have been used up to 13,000
times before it was suspended this year.
Monash IVF became aware of a fault only when it undertook a review
of the program in late September.
One Melbourne woman, who joined the class action after two of her
embryos were labelled abnormal following a non-invasive genetic
screening test by Monash IVF last year, said she had put her faith
in her doctors at the clinic.
"They said to me, 'This is cutting-edge technology,' " said the
39-year-old, who did not want to be identified. "They hold all your
hope and you give them your trust. I feel really, really angry that
a technology was rolled out which wasn't ready to be rolled out.
"I wasn't given the information around the potential uncertainty of
the test and that it was not as robust as they claimed it to be."
The woman suffered two miscarriages before undergoing in vitro
fertilisation at Monash IVF, and had dreamt of giving her young
daughter a sibling.
"The barrier for me to becoming pregnant is finding normal embryos,
and to think that one of those embryos, or two of those embryos,
could have been OK is heartbreaking," she said.
"It is also infuriating as well. I might never get another chance
now to become pregnant and I have to live with that."
Genetic screening is used to detect gene mutations that could be
passed on to children, which can determine the risk of the child
being born with debilitating or deadly genetic conditions.
Members of the class action are seeking compensation for economic
loss as well as pain and suffering, with some of the women and
couples fearing they may have lost their chance to have children.
The class action members come from Victoria, NSW, the ACT, Northern
Territory, Tasmania, Queensland and South Australia.
Margalit Injury Lawyers managing principal Michel Margalit, who is
leading the class action, said more than 1000 Monash IVF patients
could be victims.
"Our firm has now spoken to in excess of 100 claimants. There are
potentially many more hundreds, if not thousands, of people who
have been impacted," Ms Margalit said.
GPs urged to inform women about pre-pregnancy genetic testing
"For many, the resounding feeling is that they wasted their last
opportunity to have a child. The news delivered to the patients has
only exacerbated their grief and mental anguish around their
fertility journey."
The lead plaintiff in the class action is Danielle Bopping, 43, who
was told by Monash IVF that her last embryo, which had been
labelled abnormal, may have in fact been viable.
Ms Bopping, from the Australian Captial, does not have children.
She said: "IVF is such a long and difficult road. The emotional
impact of going through treatment is hard enough . . . and then to
have something like this happen has just compounded everything that
we were already dealing with.
"There have been so many women impacted and it just doesn't sit
right. Someone needs to stand up for the many women who have been
impacted."
The lawsuit comes after a landmark review of assisted reproductive
services in Victoria was led by lawyer Michael Gorton in 2018. It
examined whether there are enough safeguards to protect people
using, or intending to use, assisted reproductive treatment.
The inquiry found some would-be parents had fallen victim to rogue
operators, including one doctor who allegedly knowingly transferred
an unviable embryo into a patient.
In another case, clinicians allegedly failed to disclose equipment
failures and instead led patients to believe their embryos had
succumbed naturally.
Monash IVF has been contacted for comment. [GN]
NCAA: Supreme Court to Consider Student-Athlete Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
M. Tyler Gillett of U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US, reports that
the US Supreme Court granted certiorari in three new cases
Wednesday, including two cases about compensation for
student-athletes.
The court consolidated the cases National Collegiate Athletic
Association v. Alston and American Athletic Conference v. Alston.
In the 1984 case National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n v. Board of
Regents of the University of Oklahoma, the court held that the NCAA
could, in the interest of preserving the character and quality of
college sports, impose restrictions upon players that would
otherwise breach antitrust laws. However, in May, the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision that
the NCAA-imposed limits on education-related benefits, such as
computers, lab equipment and internships, violate antitrust laws.
The NCAA and other college athletic organizations petitioned the
Supreme Court to review the decision, arguing that the appellate
court improperly shifted the burden of proof to them, which would
invite "endless litigation" in the future, and warned that the
"decision may fundamentally change college sports" for the worse.
The athletes argue that what the NCAA and the other organizations
"seek is nothing less than antitrust immunity" for a system that
"make[s] billions of dollars on the backs of young, often
underprivileged players."
The court also granted certiorari in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez,
another case out of the Ninth Circuit. When Sergio Ramirez tried to
buy a car in 2011, a credit check that had been prepared by
TransUnion incorrectly stated that his name was listed on the
Treasury Department's Foreign Assets Control Database, a list of
persons with whom US companies cannot engage in business. The
dealer refused to sell Ramirez the car, and Ramirez's wife had to
purchase it in her name. While he was eventually able to get
TransUnion to correct the error, he sued the company on behalf of
himself and more than 8,000 other consumers who were similarly
affected. In the district court, a jury awarded the plaintiffs more
than $60 million, nearly $1,000 to each class member for violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and more than $6,000 each in
punitive damages. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the verdict
but reduced the punitive damages to a little less than $4,000 per
class member.
In its petition, TransUnion asked the court to settle two
questions. The first is whether the Constitution or the rules
governing class action lawsuits permit a class action to go forward
when the majority of the class members were not harmed at all, and
of those who were, none suffered an injury like Ramirez's. The
second question is whether the punitive damage award, being so much
larger than the statutory damages, violates TransUnion's due
process rights. In granting the petition, the court agreed to hear
the first question but not the second.
The cases will likely be argued sometime in the spring. [GN]
NEKTER JUICE: West Central Sues Over Unpaid Produce Shipments
-------------------------------------------------------------
WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEKTER JUICE BAR INC.; NATALIE
LACLAIR; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
20NWCV00723 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 21, 2020) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 2 of
the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with receipt of
trust assets, and breach of guaranty.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay or
otherwise deliver sufficient funds to the Plaintiff for the produce
shipments that they purchased. As a direct result of the
Defendants' failure to pay for each invoice within terms, the
Plaintiff has incurred damages in the current amount of
$30,931.24.
West Central Produce, Inc., conducts business as West Central
Foodservice, is a wholesaler of perishable agricultural
commodities, with offices located at 12840 Leyva St., Norwalk,
California.
Nekter Juice Bar Inc. is an owner and operator of a chain of juice
bars, headquartered in Costa Mesa, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cosmo A. Taormina, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF COSMO A. TAORMINA
377 S. Glassell Street, Suite 100
Orange, CA 92866-1962
Telephone: (714) 734-9906
Facsimile: (949) 544-0222
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of Feb. 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty" or the
"Company") (NYSE: NAK) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and docketed under 20-cv-06126, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Northern Dynasty
securities from December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Northern Dynasty securities
during the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.
Northern Dynasty engages in the exploration of mineral properties
in the U.S. Its principal mineral property is the Pebble
copper-gold-molybdenum project comprising 2,402 mineral claims that
cover an area of approximately 417 square miles located in
southwest Alaska (the "Pebble Project").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operational, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to
Clean Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (ii) the
Company planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration
and scope than conveyed to the public; (iii) as a result, the
Company's permit applications for the Pebble Project would be
denied by the US Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") and (iv) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or
misleading at all relevant times.
On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Army released a statement concerning
the Pebble Project, stating that it would result in "significant
degradation of the environment and would likely result in
significant adverse effects on the aquatic system or human
environment." The U.S. Army further found that "the project, as
currently proposed, cannot be permitted under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act." The U.S. Army requested that the Company submit a
mitigation plan in response to this finding.
On this news, Northern Dynasty's common share price fell $0.55 per
share, or 37.9%, to close at $0.90 per share on August 24, 2020.
On September 21, 2020, the Environmental Investigation Agency
released a recording between investigators and Company executives
that demonstrated that Northern Dynasty, contrary to previous
public statements, actually planned to build a mine that would last
up to 180 years.
On November 25, 2020, Northern Dynasty reported that the USACE had
rejected its permit applications related to the Pebble Project.
On this news, Northern Dynasty's common share price fell $0.40 per
share, or 50%, to close at $0.40 per share on November 25, 2020,
damaging investors.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com.
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
NORTHERN DYNASTY: Rosen Law Reminds of February 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
(NYSE: NAK) between December 21, 2017 through November 25, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important February 2, 2021
lead plaintiff deadline in the securities class action first filed
by the firm. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Northern
Dynasty investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Northern Dynasty class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1996.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 Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean Water
Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company planned
that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and scope than
conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's permit
applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
2, 2021. 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-1996.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.
Follow us for updates on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.
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]
OJ SMITH: Court Certifies FLSA and NCHWA Classes in Gonzalez Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARCOS BENITEZ GONZALEZ, ISAAC GONZALEZ HERNANDEZ,
VICTORINO FELIX ANTONIO, JUAN JAVIER VARELA CUELLAR, RUBEN
DOMINGUEZ ANTONIO, RIGOBERTO CARTERAS JARDON, JORGE BAUTISTA
SABINO, EMMANUEL CRUZ RIVERA, CELSO GONZALEZ TREJO, ERIC JACINTO
WENCES VASQUEZ, MARTIN NELSON WENCES VASQUEZ, PORFIRIO BAUTISTA
CRUZ, ALEJANDRO DE LA CRUZ MEDINA, JOSE ESTEBAN HERNANDEZ CRUZ,
SIXTO HERNANDEZ BUENO, VIRGINIO ANGELES GONZALEZ, TIBURCIO ANTONIO
MANUEL, and HUMBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. O.J. SMITH
FARMS, INC., BOSEMAN FARMS, INC., GREENLEAF NURSERY CO., SBHLP,
INC., JOEL M. BOSEMAN, JEAN J. BOSEMAN, PEYTON G. MCDANIEL, SANDRA
W. MCDANIEL, and SALVADOR BARAJAS, Defendants, Case No.
5:20-cv-00086-FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted a
joint motion for an order certifying a combined and overlapping
class action.
The Joint Motion is filed by Plaintiffs Antonio, Manuel and
Hernandez, and Defendant Greenleaf seeking an order certifying a
combined and overlapping Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
collective and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCHWA") class
action and a second separate NCWHA class action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for purposes of settlement between them.
The three Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint on Sept.
2, 2020, alleging claims for class and collective action relief
against Greenleaf under two different legal theories. In the
Second Amended Complaint, the three Plaintiffs allege an
overlapping class under the NCWHA and a collective action under
FLSA.
As part of that overlapping claim, Plaintiff Antonio alleged that
Greenleaf and defaulted Defendants Barajas and SBHLP failed to pay
him and the H-2A workers he seeks to represent all promised wages
when due at the higher minimum rate required by N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sections 95-25.6 and 95-25.13(2) and the lower minimum rate
required by the FLSA (1) for the first or last week of the workweek
due to de facto wage deductions for travel and other inbound and
outbound expenses paid by them during the 2018 and 2019 seasons
when they were allegedly jointly employed by those same defaulted
Defendants and Defendant Greenleaf in North Carolina. They also
alleged a second, independent claim for weekly de facto wage
deductions throughout the 2018 season based upon their required
kickback payment for overpriced food supplied by SBHLP in violation
of the price limitations set by the H-2A program.
Greenleaf strongly denies it engaged in any unlawful conduct. It
asserts that it properly paid for all labor services by H-2A
workers employed by SBHLP in 2018 and 2019. It further asserts it
has and had during in 2018 and 2019 lawful wage and hour policies,
practices, and procedures. Greenleaf has strongly denied, and
continues to deny, the Plaintiffs' factual and legal allegations
including that it ever was the employer of or jointly employed any
of the three Plaintiffs or the H-2A workers provided by SBHLP.
The three Plaintiffs and Defendant Greenleaf have negotiated a
settlement agreement in the action which includes relief on a class
wide basis for the combined FLSA/NCWHA collective action and class
claim and the separate NCWHA class claim under the NCWHA.
Defendant Greenleaf consents to and joins in the Joint Motion for
Class Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement reached between the parties, which is the result of
compromise to resolve the disputes between them and does not
constitute an admission of any liability to any party.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties now
seek to certify two classes. The parties move the Court, pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), to certify and conditionally certify a combined NCWHA
class and FLSA collective action represented by Plaintiff Antonio
defined as follows: All H-2A visa workers who were allegedly
jointly employed by SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas on one hand
and by Greenleaf Nursery Co. on the other who were not paid all
wages when due at the wage rate required by the FLSA on their first
or last regular paydays at any time in 2018 and/or 2019 due to de
facto wage deductions for travel and other inbound and outbound
expenses.
The parties also move the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(3), to certify a NCWHA class represented by the
three Plaintiffs defined as follows: All H-2A visa workers who were
allegedly jointly employed by SBHLP, Inc. and/or Salvador Barajas
on one hand and by Defendant Greenleaf Nursery Co. on the other who
were not paid all wages when due on their regular payday at any
time in 2018 due to de facto wage deductions for overpriced food.
Judge Flanagan finds that the Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
and the information submitted in support of the Joint Motion are
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and establish
that the classes that the three Plaintiffs seek to represent
qualify under Rule 23(b)(3). First, the specified named Plaintiffs
are members of and have precisely defined the classes they seek to
represent. Second, each class satisfies the numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23(a).
Third, the claims of the specified named Plaintiffs are typical of
and similarly situated to those of the FLSA collective action and
classes. Fourth, the named Plaintiffs are adequate representatives
of the classes. Finally, the Classes satisfy the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3).
For these reasons, Judge Flanagan granted the parties Joint
Motion.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2WDoZNc from Leagle.com.
ONTARIO: Court Won't OK Settlement Without Detailed Evidence
------------------------------------------------------------
Judges asked to approve class action settlements must determine
whether that settlement is in the "best interests of the class."
The task is challenging, as the settlements are presented on
consent, in the absence of the usual adversarial scrutiny and
debate. The task is more difficult when the settlement is presented
early in the litigation, before certification, and before the
merits and scope of the case have subjected to any real examination
by the court.
In Aps v Flight Centre Travel Group, a very experienced Ontario
class action judge, Justice Belobaba, recently emphasized that the
approval of class action settlements remains "the most difficult
and problematic area of class action practice." And it has often
been said that class action settlements should be "viewed with some
suspicion."
This case dealt with allegations of unpaid overtime. Justice
Belobaba noted that his initial reaction was he "would be
hard-pressed to approve a $7 million settlement amount when the
original claim for unpaid overtime was $100 million and covered a
class period of more than 10 years with some 10,000 class
members."
The evidence supporting the settlement
To address the concerns of the Court, class counsel subsequently
filed an expanded motion record containing detailed analyses and a
number of affidavits from class members indicating that they
supported the proposed settlement.
This evidence satisfied the Court that:
the actual size of the claim was much smaller than initially
pleaded;
the same amount of settlement compares favourably with other
overtime settlements, an therefore falls within the "zone of
reasonableness";
the Covid-19 pandemic presents a "major litigation risk"; and
there is an impressive level of class member support.
This evidence provided the Court with the basis to conclude that
the settlement was in the best interests of the class.
Key takeaways
This decision emphasizes that Courts will carefully scrutinize
settlements in class actions, particularly where those settlements
occur pre-certification.
Courts will likely demand evidence justifying that the settlement
is in the "best interests of the class" – and sometimes
supporting the proposed fees to Class counsel. This evidence, which
should be presented by the plaintiff, but which may require
defendant input, can include:
evidence detailing the actual claim size, thereby demonstrating
that the proposed settlement amount is fair and reasonable; and
evidence detailing the support for the settlement, including
affidavits from various class members. [GN]
PARTNER COMMS: Faces Class Action Over Anti-Virus Service
---------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PTNR) (TASE: PTNR), a leading Israeli communications
operator, on Dec. 22 disclosed that the Company received a lawsuit
and a motion for the recognition of this lawsuit as a class action
(the "Motion"), filed against Partner and one of its subsidiaries
(together the "Respondents") in the Tel Aviv-Jaffa District Court
on December 15, 2020.
In the Motion it was allegedly claimed, among others, that the
Respondents charge for an anti-virus service for email accounts
and/or an anti-spam service for email accounts (the "Services")
customers who do not use these Services and that the Respondents do
not maintain records of their explicit requests to receive these
Services.
The total amount claimed against the Respondents, in case the
Motion is accepted was not stated by the applicant (but was stated
as estimated at over NIS 2.5 million).
Partner is reviewing the Motion and is unable at this preliminary
stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty, the probability
of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any.
About Partner Communications
Partner Communications Company Ltd. ("Partner") is a leading
Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular,
fixed-line telephony, internet and television services). Partner's
ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its
shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (NASDAQ and TASE:
PTNR). [GN]
PINTEREST INC: Pawar Law Group Reminds of January 22 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pawar Law Group on Dec. 21 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of
Pinterest, Inc. (: PINS) from May 16, 2019 through November 1,
2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Pinterest, Inc. investors under the federal securities
laws.
To join the class action, go here or call Vik Pawar, Esq. toll-free
at 888-589-9804 or email info@pawarlawgroup.com for information on
the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: the Company's
addressable market in the U.S. was reaching its maximum capacity;
which significantly decelerated Pinterest's future ability to
monetize on U.S. average revenue per user; Pinterest was at an
increased risk of losing advertising revenue; and as a result,
Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times or lacked a reasonable basis and omitted
material facts.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than January 22, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.
No class has been certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you hire one. You may hire
counsel of your choice. You may also do nothing at this time and be
an absent member of the class. Your ability to share in any future
recovery is not dependent upon being a lead plaintiff.
Pawar Law Group represents investors from around the world.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a
similar outcome with respect to any future matter.
Contact:
Vik Pawar, Esq.
Pawar Law Group
20 Vesey Street, Suite 1410
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (917) 261-2277
Fax: (212) 571-0938
info@pawarlawgroup.com [GN]
PIPSNACKS LLC: Angeles Seeks Full Website Access for Blind Users
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIPSNACKS LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10826 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.pipsnacks.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper
label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title
elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Pipsnacks LLC is a snack manufacturing company, headquartered in
New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
PRECISION BROADBAND: Kopp Sues Over Cable Installers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
AARON KOPP, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PRECISION BROADBAND INSTALLATIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:20-cv-02779 (N.D. Ohio, December 16, 2020) is a
collective action complaint brought by the Plaintiff against the
Defendant for its alleged unlawful pay practice and policy that
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a cable installer
since 2016.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated cable installers regularly worked over 40 hours
per week, the Defendant did not allow them to report all of the
hours they worked each day and each week, including their travel
time between job sites. As a result, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated cable installers were not compensated for their
lawfully earned overtime at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all of the hours they worked over 40
each workweek.
Moreover, the Defendant failed to make, keep and preserve accurate
records of the unpaid overtime worked by the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated cable installers.
Precision Broadband Installations, Inc. provides broadband
installation and service solutions to customers in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, Kentucky and Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Must Face Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman, Esq. -- mtabakman@foxrothschild.com -- of Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in FLSA
cases, plaintiff lawyers are always looking for a deep pocket and
one of the avenues they use towards this "goal" is the joint
employer doctrine. That doctrine allows more than one employer to
be liable for employee damages (e.g. overtime, back wages) if the
employers are found to co-determine employee terms and conditions
of employment. In a recent Third Circuit case involving the health
care industry, a panel has reversed a lower court ruling that found
two entities were not a joint employer meaning that this company
now has to defend the collective action allegations of unpaid
overtime. The case is entitled Talarico v. Public Partnerships LLC
and issued from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
The Court found that Public Partnerships, LLC (PPL) set rules for a
group of Direct Care Workers (DCWs), established their working
conditions and maintained their employment records, all indicators
of a joint employer relationship. In the end, it was a factual
question for a jury. The Court observed that "whether PPL is
Talarico's employer is a genuine dispute as to a material fact
because the evidence -- viewed in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, Talarico -- does not so favor PPL that no
reasonable juror could render a verdict against it." PPL provided
"financial management services" to entities who participated in
Medicaid's Home and Community-Based Services waiver program. It
must be noted that the joint employer "problem" is prevalent in the
health care industry, where many different agencies and entities
work together to provide care.
The suit alleged that overtime was only paid to these direct care
workers when they worked in excess of forty hours for a single
client. When they worked for more than one client, and their hours
added up to more than forty, they were only paid straight time. The
lower court Judge applied the four-factor test adopted by the Third
Circuit in 2012 decision and noted that the documents "all state
that the [participant-employer] is the employer of the DCW, not
PPL." On appeal, the appellate panel that two of these factors
militated a conclusion that the entities were a joint employer.
The Third Circuit identified those "bad" factors as "the alleged
employer's authority to promulgate work rules and assignments and
to set the employees' conditions of employment: compensation,
benefits, and work schedules, including the rate and method of
payment," and "the alleged employer's actual control of employee
records, such as payroll, insurance, or taxes." The Court also
noted that "although the participants select the specific wage rate
for their DCWs, PPL caps the maximum rate DCWs may receive based on
the commonwealth's reimbursement rate. In addition to this cap, PPL
requires DCWs and the participants to submit time sheets, which PPL
then reviews before paying the DCWs." The Court also found that PPL
had the "authority to hire and fire the relevant employees" and PPL
played a role in "day-to-day employee supervision, including
employee discipline."
The Takeaway
Health care employers are, I believe, particularly at risk in these
joint employer cases. Health care entities often utilize many
staffing or other agencies for personnel and the lines of
supervision can grow blurry, which may impel a joint employer
finding. The strategy here is to engraft into any vendor or other
commercial agreement specifically demarcated lines of independence
that seal off, to as large an extent as possible, the putative
joint employer from making any decisions into the terms and
conditions of employment of the workers at issue. In other words,
the employer can draft its way out of a problem.
Maybe . . . [GN]
QIWI PLC: Glancy Prongay Reminds of February 9 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming February 9, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion
in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Qiwi Plc ("Qiwi" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
QIWI) securities between March 28, 2019 and December 9, 2020,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Qiwi 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/qiwi-plc/. 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 December 10, 2020, the Company issued a press release entitled
"QIWI (QIWI) Fined by Bank of Russia, Restricts Operations."
Therein, Qiwi stated that "[f]rom July to December 2020, the
Central Bank of Russia ('CBR'), acting in its supervisory capacity,
performed a routine scheduled audit of Qiwi Bank JSC ('Qiwi Bank')
for the period of July 2018 to September 2020 and, in the course of
this audit, has identified certain violations and deficiencies
relating primarily to reporting and record-keeping requirements."
The Company was fined RUB 11 million, or approximately USD 150,000.
The release also stated that "the CBR introduced certain
restrictions with respect to Qiwi Bank's operations, including,
effective from December 7, 2020, the suspension or limitation of
most types of payments to foreign merchants and money transfers to
pre-paid cards from corporate accounts."
On this news, the Company's ADR price fell $2.80 per share, or 20%,
to close at $10.79 per share on December 10, 2020, thereby injuring
investors.
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) Qiwi's
internal controls related to reporting and record-keeping were
ineffective; (2) consequently, the Central Bank of Russia would
impose a monetary fine upon the Company and impose restrictions
upon the Company's ability to make payments to foreign merchants
and transfer money to pre-paid cards; and (3) 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 or otherwise acquired Qiwi securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than February 9, 2021
to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class
action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please
contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
QUICK QUACK: Curran Consumer Class Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RANDY CURRAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. QUICK QUACK CAR WASH HOLDINGS, LLC and
DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 34-2020-00282263, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California on December 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 2:20-cv-02531-TLN-DB to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act by initiating fund transfers via debit
cards and took money from the bank accounts of the Plaintiff and
certain Class members without obtaining their written authorization
and/or without providing a copy of such written authorization.
Quick Quack Car Wash Holdings, LLC is a company that provides
exterior car washes based in Roseville, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
Catherine S. Simonsen, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Telephone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com
catherine.simonsen@whitecase.com
R.N.A. OF ANN: Fails to Pay OT to Janitorial Staff, Medrano Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
IRIS MEDRANO, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.N.A. OF ANN ARBOR, INCORPORATED
(d/b/a RNA Janitorial and RNA Facilities Management), 541
JANITORIAL, LLC, MAHMOUD (a/k/a "Mike") FARHA, and DENA FARHA,
Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-13381-SJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., December
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of
contract claims, wrongful termination, and violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage
Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and all others similarly
situated workers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek and failing to provide wage statements.
Ms. Medrano was employed by the Defendants as a commercial
janitorial worker and placed her at various job sites in Washtenaw
County, Michigan from January 2018 until February 2020.
R.N.A. of Ann Arbor, Incorporated, doing business as RNA Janitorial
and RNA Facilities Management, is a provider of building cleaning
and maintenance services based in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
541 Janitorial, LLC is a janitorial service company based in
Michigan. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Diana E. Marin, Esq.
MICHIGAN IMMIGRANT RIGHTS CENTER
15 S Washington Street, Suite 201
Ypsilanti, MI 48197
Telephone: (734) 239-6863
Facsimile: (734) 998-9125
E-mail: dmarin@michiganimmigrant.org
REACTOR INC: Discriminates Against Male Gym Goers, Frye Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
STEVE FRYE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. REACTOR INC., individually and dba VERTICAL HOLD ROCK
CLIMBING GYM; BENJAMIN ZINTAK; and DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case No.
37-2020-00047212-CU-CR-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., December
22, 2020) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence
and violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Gender Tax
Repeal Act of 1995.
According to the complaint, the Defendants violated several of
California's anti-discrimination statutes by advertising,
promoting, and hosting discriminatory events at Defendants' fitness
center during which females only were offered and/or provided
access to rock-climbing social events, rock-climbing
training/instruction, refreshments and/or, on information and
belief, discounts, while male and non-binary persons were not
offered and/or provided the same full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, or services, solely on the
basis of sex and/or gender identity. The disparate, sex-based
treatment occurred in relation to at least 11 known events in the
last two years.
As a result of the Defendants' unequal treatment, the Plaintiff and
Class members were harmed and they seek injunctive relief to stop
the Defendants' unfair business conduct.
Reactor Inc., doing business as Vertical Hold Rock Climbing Gym, is
a rock climbing gym, with a business address located at 2074
Hancock Street, San Diego, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel J. Williams, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL J. WILLIAMS
3990 Old Town Ave., Ste. 202-A
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: (619) 259-0285
Facsimile: (619) 923-3253
E-mail: djw2esq@gmail.com
REALTYSHARES INC: Raudonis Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WALTER RAUDONIS, as trustee for the WALTER J. RAUDONIS
2016 REVOCABLE TRUST, BRAD HONEYCUTT, DAVID HOLLAND and JEREMY
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. REALTYSHARES, INC., RS LENDING, INC., NAVJOT ATHWAL,
EDWARD FORST, IIRR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, and JOHN DOES I-VII,
Defendants, Case No. 20-10107-PBS (D. Mass.), Judge Patti B. Saris
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts allows
the Defendants' motions to suspend deadlines and stay proceedings
pending RealtyShares' bankruptcy proceedings.
The Plaintiffs filed the class action against Defendants
RealtyShares; RS Lending; IIRR; Athwal; and Forst. They assert
violations by all the Defendants of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; California's Blue Sky Law; and the common law. They allege
that the individuals were directors and officers of RealtyShares
and RS lending and are liable as control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act and state law.
RealtyShares owns an online investment platform for realestate
crowdfunding services. The members of the Plaintiffs' putative
class used the RealtyShares platform to purchase debt securities
for private real estate investments allegedly worth millions of
dollars. The Plaintiffs claim that RealtyShares and its
subsidiary, RS Lending, made false representations about the
investment.
On Aug. 5, 2020, IIRR, the successor to RealtyShares, filed notice
with the Court stating that RealtyShares had filed a voluntary
petition for bankruptcy relief in the Northern District of
California. The notice further explained that the bankruptcy
petition by RealtyShares operates as a stay on proceedings pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(1). IIRR further asserted that, as a
result of the stay imposed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 362, the
continuation of the present case is stayed to all parties.
IIRR then filed a motion to suspend deadlines, arguing that the
automatic stay should apply to all parties. Defendants RS Lending,
Athwal, and Forst filed a separate motion to stay proceedings.
They requested that the Court finds that the case was automatically
stayed in light of the bankruptcy proceedings, or, in the
alternative, that the Court uses its discretion to stay the case to
avoid duplicative proceedings.
The parties agree that, because IIRR is a successor to
RealtyShares, the Plaintiffs cannot proceed against IIRR without
also proceeding against RealtyShares. Accordingly, Judge Saris
grants IIRR's motion seeking to stay proceedings against IIRR.
As to RS Lending and the Individual Defendants, the Judge finds
that the pleadings in the case make it difficult to disentangle the
liability of RealtyShares, RS Lending, and the Individual
Defendants. Because the operations and alleged malfeasance of the
defendants were interrelated, intertwined and intermingled,
extension of the stay in the case appears to be appropriate. The
Defendants have also offered evidence to support their argument
that the company's policy covers the company and the individuals.
Finally, the Judge finds that although imposing the stay might pose
some hardship on the Plaintiffs, because the latter's allegations
tie directly to RealtyShares, the case will limp along without
RealtyShares's participation. Indeed, although RS Lending sold
notes to the Plaintiffs, it did so through the RealtyShares
platform, which is where the alleged misrepresentations appeared.
Athwal and Forst appear to be mostly liable as "control persons" of
RealtyShares. Many documents that might be collected through
discovery therefore likely exist in RealtyShares's custody and
control. Inevitably, RealtyShares will be dragged into the
litigation, or the case will be forced to proceed piecemeal. For
that reason, the principle of judicial economy counsels extending
the stay to all parties to the case and suspending all deadlines.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://bit.ly/37Gjyng from Leagle.com.
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Feb. 19 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased
Restaurant Brands International, Inc. (NYSE: QSR) common stock
between April 29, 2019 and October 28, 2019 (the "Class Period").
Investors have until February 19, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
On April 24, 2018, Restaurant Brands announced a new strategy
designed to improve performance within the Company's Tim Hortons
brand. Specifically, the "Winning Together Plan" would focus on
three key pillars: restaurant experience; product excellence; and
brand communications.
On March 20, 2019, Restaurant Brands announced "Tims Rewards" -- a
new loyalty program for Tim Hortons customers in Canada. Under the
Tims Rewards program, customers would be eligible for a free hot
brewed coffee, hot tea, or baked good after every seventh paid
visit to a participating Tim Hortons restaurant. On April 10, 2019,
Restaurant Brands announced that it was expanding the Tims Rewards
program to include customers in the United States.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the
implementation and execution of the Company's Winning Together Plan
and Tims Rewards loyalty program. On the heels of the Company
touting the benefits of these initiatives, the Company completed
two stock offerings on or about August 12, 2019, and September 5,
2019, collectively resulting in proceeds of approximately $3
billion to insiders.
On October 28, 2019, mere weeks after the offerings were completed,
investors learned the truth about Tim Hortons's hyped growth
initiatives when the Company announced disappointing financial
results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2019.
Specifically, Defendants acknowledged that "results at Tim Hortons
were not where we want them to be with global comparable sales
dipping into negative territory" and admitted that "discounting
[associated with Tims Rewards] is slightly more than offsetting the
traffic levels, which is causing a little bit of softness in
sales."
On this news, the price of Restaurant Brands common stock declined
$2.59 per share, or approximately 4%, from a close of $68.45 per
share on October 25, 2019, to close at $65.86 per share on October
28, 2019.
The complaint, filed on December 21, 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 and operations. Specifically,
defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the
Company's Winning Together Plan was failing to generate
substantial, sustainable improvement within the Tim Hortons brand;
(2) the Tims Rewards loyalty program was not generating sustainable
revenue growth as increased customer traffic was not offsetting
promotional discounting; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Restaurant Brands common stock during the Class
Period and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or
Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at
(212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no
cost or obligation to you.
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York and California. The firm represents
individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities,
derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal
courts across the country. For more information about the firm,
please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do
not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN]
RUGBY FOOTBALL: Faces League Players' Brain Injury Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
NZ Herald reports that league players are preparing to follow their
union counterparts into court over brain injury claims.
And a sports lawyer says it could be the "final straw" for
professional league, which may not survive if the action is
successful.
As first reported by the Herald, 70 former rugby players could have
contributed to a possible group class action, including multiple
All Blacks, against the game's authorities for negligence.
The rugby league case concerns British league, and it's hard to
judge what any ramifications might be for the NRL.
The Guardian reports that up to 10 former league players have
approached Rylands Law, which is also representing former union
players such as England World Cup winner Steve Thompson who have
been diagnosed with brain injuries. The league players, some who
are long retired, are understood to be displaying signs of
dementia.
Richard Cramer, from the Leeds-based firm Front Row Legal, believed
it would be difficult to prove in court that league was negligent.
But he indicated any large payouts for such a financially fragile
sport could be catastrophic.
"It may not be able to survive claims of this nature, because it
can run into thousands and thousands of pounds," he said.
"This isn't good news financially for the sport and could be the
final straw but it clearly can't be brushed aside because of the
issues facing the players."
But Cramer, whose firm represents sports, media and business
people, appeared to believe the case might struggle.
"There is no clearcut favourite here; I can certainly see it from
the claimants' point of view," he said.
"The RFL have treated concussion a lot more seriously over the last
few years but the real test is whether any governing body in any
sport were always aware of the risks associated with head
injuries.
"The most obvious defence would be 'Volenti non fit injuria', which
means that when a player goes out on the field, they're aware of
the physical nature of the sport they're playing and they consent
to playing with the risks associated to it.
"But if there is medical evidence to show these issues and injuries
have been caused by playing the game, that's something that cannot
be ignored.
"If they chose to ignore them at any stage there's a duty of care
issue for sure."
"This is a very real issue and while any challenge will be
vigorously defended by the authorities, if it can be proven there
has been some sort of negligence, there is certainly a chance the
claims could succeed." [GN]
SHOES FOR CREWS: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Angeles Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOES FOR CREWS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:20-cv-10828 (S.D.N.Y., December 22, 2020) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its Website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's Website,
www.shoesforcrews.com, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online
goods, content, and services offered to the general public through
the Website. These access barriers include, but not limited to: (1)
features lack alternative text (alt-text), or a text equivalent,
which prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a
description of the graphics; (2) features fail to contain proper
label elements or titles; (3) pages contain the same title
elements; and (4) pages contain a host of broken links.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain
accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
Shoes for Crews, LLC is a shoe company, headquartered in Boca
Raton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
SIGMA CORP: N.Y. Court Dismisses Suit With Prejudice as to Romero
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York dismissed the case, JOSUE ROMERO,
Plaintiff v. SIGMA CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 20
CV 8312-LTS-OTW (S.D.N.Y.).
The action is dismissed with prejudice as to the named Plaintiff
and without prejudice as to all the other Plaintiffs and without
costs to either party, but without prejudice to restoration of the
action to the calendar of the undersigned if settlement is not
achieved within 30 days of the date of the Order.
The attorneys for the parties have advised the Court that the
putative class action has been or will be settled. If a party
wishes to reopen the matter or extend the time within which it may
be settled, the party must make a letter application before the
30-day period expires.
The parties are advised that if they wish the Court to retain
jurisdiction in the matter for purposes of enforcing any settlement
agreement, they will submit the settlement agreement to the Court
to be so ordered
A copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2021 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2JdVVJ9 from Leagle.com.
SOCIALEATS 1315: Breaches PACA-Related Contract, West Central Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
WEST CENTRAL PRODUCE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOCIALEATS 1315 LLC dba FUKU and
dba SOCIAL EATS, PIZZA 1315 EMPLOYER, LLC dba PAPERBOY PIZZA, SVB
SANTA MONICA, LLC dba STRFSH, SUPERTRIO1542, LLC dba SUPERTORO
HOLLYWOOD, TAQUERIA 1315, LLC dba AZULE TAQUERIA, K2 RESTAURANTS,
LLC, JOHN KOLASKI, and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 20NWCV00721 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., December 21, 2020)
is a class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 2
of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with receipt of
trust assets, and breach of guaranty.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay or
otherwise deliver sufficient funds to the Plaintiff for the produce
shipments that they purchased with a total invoice value in the
current amount of $14,221.20. As a direct result of the Defendants'
failure to pay for each invoice within terms, the Plaintiff has
incurred damages.
West Central Produce, Inc., conducts business as West Central
Foodservice, is a wholesaler of perishable agricultural
commodities, with offices located at 12840 Leyva St., Norwalk,
California.
Socialeats 1315 LLC, doing business as Fuku and Social Eats, is
restaurant owner and operator in California.
Pizza 1315 Employer, LLC, doing business as Paperboy Pizza, is a
pizza restaurant owner and operator located in California.
SVB Santa Monica, LLC, doing business as STRFSH, is a seafood
restaurant owner and operator based in California.
Supertrio1542, LLC, doing business as Supertoro Hollywood, is a
Japanese restaurant owner and operator located in California.
Taqueria 1315, LLC, doing business as Azule Taqueria, is a
restaurant owner and operator located in California.
K2 Restaurants, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator located in
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Cosmo A. Taormina, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF COSMO A. TAORMINA
377 S. Glassell Street, Suite 100
Orange, CA 92866-1962
Telephone: (714) 734-9906
Facsimile: (949) 544-0222
SOCIEDAD QUIMICA: TWPF to Share in U$62.5MM Class Action Payout
---------------------------------------------------------------
IPE reports that Tyne and Wear Pension Fund (TWPF) will share in a
$62.5m (EUR50m) payout from Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile
(SQM), a Chilean mining company, five years after launching a class
action against the company for fraud.
Judge Edgardo Ramos of the district court for the Southern District
of New York gave preliminary approval to a settlement between the
parties on Dec. 18.
The £11.4bn (EUR12bn) pension fund -- which provides pensions for
local government employees in the north-east region of the UK --
was lead plaintiff in the class action, represented by its
administering authority South Tyneside Council. SQM is one of the
world's largest producers and distributors of speciality
fertilisers and industrial chemicals.
The case alleged that SQM had made materially false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that it made secret, illegal
payments -- primarily through its then CEO, Patricio Contesse -- to
electoral campaigns for Chilean politicians and political parties,
as far back as 2009.
SQM was also accused of filing millions of dollars worth of
fictitious tax receipts with Chilean authorities in order to
conceal the payment of bribes, and producing financial statements
which were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
It was also alleged that, as a result of SQM's bribery scheme and
the defendant's false statements, the price of SQM American
Depositary Shares (ADSs) was artificially inflated between 30 Jun,
2010 and 18 March 2015, peaking at more than $66 a share in July
2011.
TWPF claimed it suffered losses of more than $4.4m on its shares
during the period as a result of SQM's securities violations.
"These extraordinary results would not have been possible a couple
of decades ago" Aelish Baig, partner with Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd
Aelish Baig, partner with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd (RGRD), the
lawyers acting for TWPF, said the case was uniquely challenging in
that most of the evidence was in Chile. Documents and testimony
were in Spanish, and Chilean law was implicated in certain
respects, and even raised as a defence.
Baig said RGRD had deployed an extremely capable internal
e-discovery team that allowed for electronic review of hundreds of
thousands of documents. It put together a multilingual team,
bringing in Chilean legal expertise as needed. In Chile,
depositions are considered unlawful, so RGRD forced SQM to bring
its witnesses to the US.
The pandemic also presented logistical challenges, she said.
But Baig observed: "SQM investors will recoup a sizeable portion of
their losses. For investors in general, the case should provide
some comfort that foreign corporations wishing to benefit from
trading on the New York Stock Exchange can and will be held
accountable for violations of US laws."
She added that on multiple occasions in 2019 and 2020, UK-based
pension funds had led shareholder litigation and achieved
"extraordinary" outcomes.
She commented: "These extraordinary results would not have been
possible a couple of decades ago. However, given technological
advancements, we are now able to hold companies accountable for
unlawful acts irrespective of whether they reside next door, across
the pond, or on separate continents." [GN]
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Mann Balks at Deceptive Debt Collection Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHAIM MANN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST CREDIT SYSTEMS, L.P., and JOHN
DOES 1-25, Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-02821 (N.D. Ohio, December
23, 2020) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's collection of an alleged debt,
charged as equipment cost, owed to Time Warner Cable from the
Plaintiff on October 14, 2020 without providing details about the
possibility of reducing the charge significantly by simply
returning the equipment. The Defendant has deceptively misled the
Plaintiff by implying that the equipment cost is fixed and cannot
be remedied or mitigated.
Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. is a debt collection agency based in
Carrollton, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
SPLUNK INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of February 2 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP on Dec. 22 disclosed that class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of shareholders of SPLK, NAK,
and NERV. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the
court by the lead plaintiff deadlines listed below. 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
take no action, you may remain an absent class member.
To discuss the cases below please contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll
free at (877) 779-1414.
Splunk Inc. (NASDAQ: SPLK)
CLASS PERIOD: 10/21/2020-12/2/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 2, 2021
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made material misstatements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Splunk was not closing deals
with its largest customers in the third fiscal quarter of 2021; (2)
Splunk was not hitting the financial targets it had previously
announced; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you purchased Splunk securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Splunk Shareholder Class
Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877)
779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. (NYSE: NAK)
CLASS PERIOD: 12/21/2017-11/25/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 2, 2021
Throughout the class period Defendants failed to disclose to
investors(1) the Company's Pebble Project was contrary to Clean
Water Act guidelines and to the public interest; (2) the Company
planned that the Pebble Project would be larger in duration and
scope than conveyed to the public; (3) as a result, the Company's
permit applications for the Pebble Project would be denied by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
If you purchased Northern Dynasty securities, and/or would like to
discuss your legal rights and options please visit Northern Dynasty
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero
toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com.
Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. (NASDAQ: NERV)
CLASS PERIOD: 5/15/2017-11/30/2020
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: February 8, 2021
Throughout the class period Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that: (i) the truth about the feedback received from the
FDA concerning the "end-of-Phase 2" meeting; (ii) the Phase 2b
study did not use the commercial formulation of roluperidone and
was conducted solely outside of the United States; (iii) the
failure of the Phase 3 study to meet its primary and key secondary
endpoints rendered that study incapable of supporting substantial
evidence of effectiveness; (iv) the Company's plan to use the
combination of the Phase 2b and Phase 3 studies would be "highly
unlikely" to support the submission of an NDA; (v) reliance on
these two trials in the submission of an NDA would lead to
"substantial review issues" because the trials were inadequate and
not well-controlled; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times
If you purchased Minerva securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Minerva Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit 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
http://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN]
SPLUNK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 2 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Splunk Inc. ("Splunk" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SPLK) for
violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October
21, 2020 and December 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 2, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Splunk failed to close deals with large
customers in the third quarter of fiscal 2021. The Company was not
hitting the targets it had previously announced to the market.
Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false
and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about
Splunk, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Miss. Court Dismisses Lott Suit Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOLLY LOTT, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TAISHAN GYPSUM CO., LTD,
et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:17cv217-LG-RPM (S.D. Miss.), Judge
Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi granted the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Personal Jurisdiction filed by Defendants Taishan Gypsum Co., Ltd.
and Tai'an Taishan Plasterboard Co., Ltd.
On Aug. 1, 2017, the case was filed as a putative class action
against Taishan and three other Defendants for damages caused by
defective drywall installed in the Plaintiffs' homes. The case was
transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
the In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability
Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana. The case was remanded to the Court on April 15, 2020.
Several months later, Taishan filed the instant Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
Taishan does not dispute that the Mississippi long-arm statute
applies. Therefore, the only consideration is whether the Court's
exercise of jurisdiction over Taishan would comport with due
process, Judge Guirola notes.
Taishan has presented sworn testimony by its Chairman of the Board,
Jia Tongchun, that Taishan is a Chinese corporation with its
principal place of business in Tai'an City, Shandong Province,
People's Republic of China. All of its employees are located in
China, and it manufactures and sells drywall exclusively in China.
Taishan has no connection of any kind with Mississippi.
Judge Guirola notes that the Plaintiffs have not presented any
evidence regarding how Taishan's drywall may have made its way to
Mississippi. All of the evidence before the Court indicates that,
if Taishan's drywall was used in Mississippi homes, it arrived in
the state through the actions of third persons unrelated to
Taishan. There is no evidence that Taishan delivered its drywall
into the stream of commerce with the expectation that it would be
purchased or used by Mississippi residents.
Judge Guirola opines that the Plaintiffs have not set forth a prima
facie case that Taishan has minimum contacts with Mississippi.
They also have not attempted to prove the second factor for
demonstrating that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Taishan would comport with due process--whether the Plaintiff's
cause of action arises out of or results from the Defendant's
forum-related contacts. Therefore, Taishan is not subject to
personal jurisdiction in the Court, and its Motion to Dismiss must
be granted.
Taishan's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is
granted because the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of
demonstrating a prima facie case that the Court's exercise of
personal jurisdiction over Taishan would comport with due process.
The lawsuit is dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal
jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Memorandum Opinion &
Order is available at https://bit.ly/3mK3vJ6 from Leagle.com.
TESSEMAE'S: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tessemae's LLC. The
case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tessemae's LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10917
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 24, 2020).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Tessemae's -- https://www.tessemaes.com/ -- is an American organic
salad dressing and condiment company.[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
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Sacramento Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO and THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through the City of Sacramento City
Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA
PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON;
ORTHO-MCNEIL-JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. NOW KNOWN AS (N/K/A)
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA, INC. N/K/A
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO
INTERNATIONAL PLC; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; ALLERGAN INC. N/K/A
ALLERGAN PLC; ACTAVIS PLC N/K/A ALLERGAN PLC; WATSON
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. N/K/A ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC; ACTAVIS, INC.
N/K/A ALLERGAN FINANCE LLC; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; WATSON
LABORATORIES, INC.; WATSON PHARMA INC. N/K/A ACTAVIS PHARMA, INC.;
ACTAVIS LLC; MALLINCKRODT LLC; MALLINCKRODT PLC; SPECGX LLC;
MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG
CORPORATION; CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; WALGREEN CO.; RITE AID
CORPORATION; THRIFTY PAYLESS INC.; and BRYANT RANCH PREPACK, Case
No. 2:20-at-00890, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio on December 23, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 1:20-op-45290-DAP to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring this class suit against the Defendants for
public nuisance, negligence, false advertising, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment due to the economic and
non-economic injuries suffered by resident doctors, health care
payors, and other individuals as a result of abuse of prescription
opioid medications.
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is an American-Israeli
pharmaceutical company, with dual headquarters in Petah Tikva,
Israel and Parsippany, New Jersey.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. is a manufacturer of generic
pharmaceutical products based in Pennsylvania.
Cephalon, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company based in Frazer,
Pennsylvania.
Johnson & Johnson is a medical device company based in New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Ortho-Mcneil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in New
Jersey.
Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., now known as Janssen Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., is a pharmaceutical company based in New Jersey.
Endo Health Solutions Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Endo International PLC is an American Irish-domiciled generics and
specialty branded pharmaceutical company based in Dublin, Ireland.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Allergan Inc., now known as Allergan PLC, is an American,
Irish-domiciled pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Madison,
New Jersey.
Actavis PLC, now known as Allergan PLC, is an American,
Irish-domiciled pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Madison,
New Jersey.
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance LLC, is
a manufacturer and distributor of pharmaceutical products based in
Madison, New Jersey.
Actavis, Inc., now known as Allergan Finance LLC, is a manufacturer
and distributor of pharmaceutical products based in Madison, New
Jersey.
Allergan USA, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in Irvine,
California.
Watson Laboratories, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company based in
Corona, California.
Watson Pharma Inc., now known as Actavis Pharma, Inc., is a
manufacturer of generic pharmaceutical products based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.
Actavis LLC is a pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Madison,
New Jersey.
Mallinckrodt LLC is a pharmaceutical company based in Saint Louis,
Missouri.
Mallinckrodt PLC is a specialty pharmaceutical based in Saint
Louis, Missouri.
Specgx LLC is a pharmaceutical company based in Webster Groves,
Missouri.
McKesson Corporation is an American company distributing
pharmaceuticals and providing health information technology,
medical supplies, and care management tools, headquartered in
Irving, Texas.
Cardinal Health, Inc. is an American multinational health care
services company based in Dublin, Ohio.
AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation is a pharmaceutical company
based in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania.
CVS Health Corporation is an American healthcare company based in
Woonsocket, Rhode Island.
Walgreen Co. is an American company that operates a pharmacy store
chain, headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois.
Rite Aid Corporation is an American drugstore chain based in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania.
Thrifty Payless Inc. was a pharmacy holding company that owned the
Thrifty Drugs and PayLess Drug Stores chains, headquartered in Camp
Hill, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Charles J. Stevens, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
Telephone: (415) 393-8200
Facsimile: (415) 393-8306
E-mail: cstevens@gibsondunn.com
- and –
Lester C. Houtz, Esq.
Alex J. Harris, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3177
Facsimile: (303) 592-3140
E-mail: les.houtz@bartlitbeck.com
alex.harris@bartlitbeck.com
- and –
Zachary Byer, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
E-mail: zachary.byer@kirkland.com
- and –
Donna Welch, P.C., Esq.
Timothy W. Knapp, Esq.
Karl Stampfl, Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
300 North LaSalle
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 862-2000
E-mail: donna.welch@kirkland.com
tknapp@kirkland.com
karl.stampfl@kirkland.com
- and –
Jennifer G. Levy, P.C., Esq.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 389-5000
E-mail: jennifer.levy@kirkland.com
- and –
Eric J. Buhr, Esq.
Alexis A. Rochlin, Esq.
Sarah B. Johansen, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
355 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 457-8000
Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
E-mail: ebuhr@reedsmith.com
arochlin@reedsmith.com
sjohansen@reedsmith.com
- and –
Steven J. Boranian, Esq.
101 Second Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105-3659
Telephone: (415) 543-8700
Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
E-mail: sboranian@reedsmith.com
- and –
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 979-8458
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
- and –
Conor B. O'Croinin, Esq.
J. Michael Pardoe, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 332-0444
- and –
John D. Lombardo, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
Telephone: (213) 243-4000
Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
E-mail: John.lombardo@arnoldporter.com
- and –
Beth S. Rose, Esq.
SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS, P.C.
1 Riverfront Plaza
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 643-7000
Facsimile: (973) 643-6500
E-mail: brose@sillscummis.com
- and –
Charles C. Lifland, Esq.
Sabrina H. Strong, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
400 S. Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
E-mail: clifland@omm.com
sstrong@omm.com
- and –
Michael G. Yoder, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP
610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-6900
E-mail: myoder@omm.com
- and –
Rocky C. Tsai, Esq.
Traci J. Irvin, Esq.
Three Embarcadero Center
San Francisco, CA 94111-4006
Telephone: (415) 315-6300
Facsimile: (415) 315-6350
E-mail: rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com
traci.irvin@ropesgray.com
- and –
Nathan E. Shafroth, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
E-mail: nshafroth@cov.com
- and –
Raymond G. Lu, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
Telephone: (424) 332-4800
E-mail: rlu@cov.com
- and –
Collie F. James, IV, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
600 Anton Blvd., Ste. 1800
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (949) 399-7199
E-mail: collie.james@morganlewis.com
- and –
Benjamin P. Smith, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
Telephone: (415) 442-1289
Facsimile: (415) 442-1001
E-mail: benjamin.smith@morganlewis.com
TORTI FOOD: Faces Abreu Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
The case, RAMON ABREU, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. TORTI FOOD, CORP.
d/b/a MIRADOR RESTAURANT, ABC CORP. 1-3 d/b/a MIRADOR RESTAURANT,
DEMETRIA CHAPMAN, and JOSE PEREZ, Defendants, Case No.
1:20-cv-10643 (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2020) arises from the
Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff began his employment with the Defendants in or about
January 2013 as a cook until on or about December 25, 2018.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was required by the
Defendant to work on Monday through Sunday from 3:00P.M. until
11:00P.M. without being afforded an uninterrupted meal break of at
least thirty minutes. However, the Defendants failed to compensate
the Plaintiff based on an hourly rate of pay throughout his
employment. Regardless of the number of hours he worked, the
Plaintiff was only paid a fixed rate of pay amounting to $750.00
per week from January 2013 to December 2016, and $825.00 per week
from in or about December 2016 through on or about December 25,
2018. As a result, the Defendants allegedly failed to pay the
Plaintiff at the statutorily required overtime rate of one and
one-half times his regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.
The complaint asserts that the Defendants failed to provide the
Plaintiff with a proper notice and acknowledgement of his wage upon
hire in his primary language, as well as with accurate wage
statements for each pay period. In addition, the Defendants failed
to track the Plaintiff's hours worked and pay him in accordance
with his hours worked, thereby willfully disregarded and
purposefully evaded record keeping requirements of the FLSA and
NYLL.
Moreover, the Defendants Torti and Chapman unlawfully retaliated
against the Plaintiff by terminating his employment after engaging
in protected activity under the FLSA and NYLL.
The Corporate Defendants operate a restaurant that serves primarily
Latin American and Dominican fare. The Individual Defendants were
active in the day-to-day management of the Corporate Defendants,
including the payment of wages to the Plaintiff and determining
what wages were paid to the Plaintiff. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Barnhorn, Esq.
Peter A. Romero, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF PETER A. ROMERO PLLC
825 Veterans Hihway, Suite B
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: (631) 257-5588
TRANSDEV NORTH: Faces Millings Wage & Hour Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
RHONDIA MILLINGS, DAWN ADAMS, ARMANDO TREJO, MIA POSEY and
SHADRIEKA JOHNSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. TRANSDEV NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:20-cv-07711 (N.D. Ill., December 23, 2020) is a class
action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the California
Labor Code including failure to pay the Plaintiffs' and all others
similarly situated drivers' pre-shift and post-shift work, failure
to provide meal and rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu
thereof, failure to provide accurate work time records, and failure
to timely pay final wages.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendant as full-time, hourly-paid
drivers in Maryland or California at any time from 2017 to 2020.
Transdev North America, Inc. is a provider of transportation
services based in Lombard, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James B. Zouras, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
100 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2150
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 233-1550
E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
- and –
David J. Cohen, Esq.
STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
604 Spruce Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Telephone: (215) 873-4836
E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com
TRITERRAS INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of February 19 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on Dec. 22 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras"
or the "Company") f/k/a Netfin Acquisition Corp. ("Netfin")
(NASDAQ: TRIT, TRITW) securities between August 20, 2020 and
December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Triterras
investors have until February 19, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.
Triterras is a fintech company focused on trade and trade finance.
It operates Kratos, a commodity trading and trade finance platform
that connects commodity traders to trade and source capital from
lenders directly online. Triterras formed via merger of Netfin and
Triterras Fintech Pte. Ltd. ("Triterras Fintech"), which closed on
November 11, 2020 (the "Merger").
Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd. ("Rhodium") is a commodity trading
business controlled by Srinivas Koneru, the Company's Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO"). Rhodium enabled the launch of the Kratos
platform, and substantially all of the Company's users were
referred to it by Rhodium.
On December 17, 2020, Triterras stated that Rhodium was seeking a
moratorium to shield itself from creditor actions while it planned
a restructuring of its debts and continue its business as a going
concern.
On this news, the Company's share price fell $4.11, or 31%, to
close at $9.09 per share on December 17, 2020, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's warrant price fell $1.09, or 35%, to
close at $2.01 per warrant on December 17, 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) the extent to which Company's revenue growth relied
on Triterras' relationship with Rhodium to refer users to the
Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium faced significant financial
liabilities that jeopardized its ability to continue as a going
concern; (3) that, as a result, Rhodium was likely to refer fewer
users to the Company's Kratos platform; and (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased Triterras securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than February 19, 2021 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 Triterras 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]
TRITERRAS INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Dec. 22
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Triterras, Inc. f/k/a Netfin
Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: TRIT; TRITW) between August 20, 2020 and
December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Triterras investors under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Triterras class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2008.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:
(1) the extent to which the Company's revenue growth relied on
Triterras' relationship with Rhodium Resources Pte. Ltd.
("Rhodium") to refer users to the Kratos platform; (2) that Rhodium
faced significant financial liabilities that jeopardized its
ability to continue as a going concern; (3) that, as a result,
Rhodium was likely to refer fewer users to the Company's Kratos
platform; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about Triterras' business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims
that investors suffered damages.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than February
19, 2021. 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-2008.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.
Contacts:
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
TRITERRAS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of February 19 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Dec. 22 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Triterras, Inc. ("Triterras" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TRIT) for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 20,
2020 and December 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before February 19, 2021.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Triterras misled investors about the
extent to which its revenue growth relied on Rhodium referring
users to the Company's Kratos platform. Rhodium suffered from
severe financial problems, which in turn jeopardized the growth of
Triterras' Kratos platform. Based on these facts, the Company's
public statements were false and materially misleading throughout
the class period. When the market learned the truth about
Triterras, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.
Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]
TYSON FOODS: Colvin Antitrust Suit Moved From D. Kan. to E.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as HENRY RANDALL COLVIN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS, INC.; TYSON
CHICKEN, INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION;
PERDUE FOODS, LLC; KOCH FOODS, INC.; KOCH MEAT CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH
POULTRY CO.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOOD
DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PROCESSING DIVISION); and
SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION DIVISION), Case No.
2:20-cv-02464, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-RJS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act by exchanging competitively sensitive information
about broiler chicken grower compensation and agreeing not to
solicit or poach one another's broiler chicken growers, which
suppressed the compensation of growers below competitive levels.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is a processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and
pork meat, headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Chicken, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Breeders, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Poultry, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a chicken producer headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado.
Perdue Foods, LLC is a chicken, turkey, and pork processing company
headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland.
Koch Foods, Inc. is a food processor and distributor headquartered
in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Koch Meat Co., Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry Co., is a food processor
and distributor headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry producer headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Grant L. Davis, Esq.
Thomas C. Jones, Esq.
Timothy C. Gaarder, Esq.
1100 Main St., Suite 2930
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 421-1600
Facsimile: (816) 472-5972
E-mail: gdavis@dbjlaw.net
tjones@dbjlaw.net
tgaarder@dbjlaw.net
TYSON FOODS: McEntire Antitrust Suit Transferred to E.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as MARC MCENTIRE and KAREN MCENTIRE, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TYSON FOODS,
INC.; TYSON CHICKEN, INC.; TYSON BREEDERS, INC.; TYSON POULTRY,
INC.; PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION; PERDUE FOODS, LLC; KOCH FOODS,
INC.; KOCH MEAT CO, INC., d/b/a KOCH POULTRY CO.; SANDERSON FARMS,
INC.; SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (FOOD DIVISION); SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
(PROCESSING DIVISION); and SANDERSON FARMS, INC. (PRODUCTION
DIVISION), Case No. 1:20-cv-02764, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma assigned
Case No. 6:20-cv-00479-RJS to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 202 of the Packers and
Stockyards Act by exchanging competitively sensitive information
about broiler chicken grower compensation and agreeing not to
solicit or poach one another's broiler chicken growers, which
suppressed competition for broiler grow-out services and drove down
compensation to all growers below competitive levels.
Tyson Foods, Inc. is a processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and
pork meat, headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Chicken, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Breeders, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Tyson Poultry, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Tyson Foods,
Inc., headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas.
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is a chicken producer headquartered in
Greeley, Colorado.
Perdue Foods, LLC is a chicken, turkey, and pork processing company
headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland.
Koch Foods, Inc. is a food processor and distributor headquartered
in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Koch Meat Co., Inc., d/b/a Koch Poultry Co., is a food processor
and distributor headquartered in Park Ridge, Illinois.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. is a poultry producer headquartered in
Laurel, Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kevin T. Shutte, Esq.
SHAPIRO BIEGING BARBER OTTESON LLP
5430 LBJ Freeway, Suite 1540
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (214) 307-0419
E-mail: kschutte@sbbolaw.com
- and –
Nelson R. Roach, Esq.
ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 75638
Telephone: (903) 645-7333
E-mail: nroach@rlbfirm.com
- and –
Klint L. Bruno, Esq.
Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
ROACH LANGSTON BRUNO LLP
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 321-6481
E-mail: kbruno@rlbfirm.com
msilverman@rlbfirm.com
UNITED STATES: ICE Faces Detained Immigrants' Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of the whistleblower disclosures by nurse Dawn Wooten,
detained immigrants have come forward to file a class action
lawsuit against ICE, LaSalle Corrections, and Georgia gynecologist
Dr. Mahendra Amin, among others. As part of a lawsuit filed on Dec.
21 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,
at least 40 women provided declarations and 14 served as plaintiffs
that they were subject to nonconsensual and invasive procedures by
Dr. Amin while detained at the Irwin County Detention Center
(ICDC). Their complaint, detailed in a 160-page document, includes
instances of physical assault, detainment in solitary confinement,
and even threatened or actual deportation for speaking out about
abuses by Amin. Lawyers and advocates note that the Dec. 21 filing
underscores the increasing number of women stepping forward with
allegations against Amin, signaling an institutional pattern of
neglect by ICE.
Government Accountability Project and Project South serve as
co-counsel for Ms. Dawn Wooten, a nurse at ICDC who suffered
retaliation after raising concerns internally about concerning
medical practices and conditions she witnessed at the facility. Her
disclosures to the Department of Homeland Security's Office of
Inspector General, including reports of several detained immigrant
women undergoing forced sterilizations with dubious consent, went
viral in September of this year after reporting by The Intercept
and dozens of other media outlets. Ms. Wooten's disclosures, which
prompted several ongoing agency investigations and calls from
Congress to stop the horrific abuses, catalyzed more than 57 women
to come forward with their stories of medical misconduct at the
hands of Dr. Amin and ICE.
Dana Gold, Government Accountability Project Senior Counsel and
lawyer for Ms. Wooten, stated:
"Ms. Dawn Wooten's brave decision to come forward about the
abhorrent conditions at Irwin have driven widespread calls for
reform desperately needed to address the systemic abuses of
immigrant detention. That Ms. Wooten's disclosures created the
space for the survivors to come forward to seek justice through
this lawsuit is a testament to the important role whistleblowers
play in exposing, stopping, addressing and preventing wrongdoing
and harm through the power of truth-telling. This lawsuit not only
validates the substance of Ms. Wooten's disclosures, but the reason
she spoke out: to make a difference."
Azadeh Shahshahani, Project South Legal and Advocacy Director and
lawyer for Ms. Wooten, and co-counsel in the class action on behalf
of the detained women survivors, commented:
"We are seeking an immediate end to the egregious retaliation
against the women who spoke out against the abuse, release of the
women who have suffered medical abuse, and compensation for the
harms that the survivors suffered. It is high time for this
facility rife with human rights violations to be shut down and for
ICE and LaSalle to be held accountable."
Contact: Andrew Harman, Government Accountability Project
Communications Director
Email: andrewh@whistleblower.org
Phone: (202) 457-0034 x156
Contact: Azadeh Shahshahani, Project South Legal and Advocacy
Director
Email: Azadeh@projectsouth.org
Phone: 404-574-0851
Government Accountability Project
Government Accountability Project is the nation's leading
whistleblower protection organization. Through litigating
whistleblower cases, publicizing concerns and developing legal
reforms, Government Accountability Project's mission is to protect
the public interest by promoting government and corporate
accountability. Founded in 1977, Government Accountability Project
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization based in
Washington, D.C.
Project South
Project South is a Southern-based leadership development
organization that creates spaces for movement building. We work
with communities pushed forward by the struggle– to strengthen
leadership and to provide popular political and economic education
for personal and social transformation. We build relationships with
organizations and networks across the US and global South to inform
our local work and to engage in bottom-up movement building for
social and economic justice. [GN]
UNITED STATES: New Jersey Court Dismisses Freeman Inmates Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey dismissed with prejudice the claims against the United
States of America and President Donald Trump in the case, DONELL
FREEMAN, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 20-13341 (KM) (ESK) (D.N.J.).
The complaint purports to be a class action on behalf of all
inmates at Northern State Prison, for whom Mr. Freeman is the
"representative." The complaint is signed by Freeman, as well as
several other inmates. The named Defendants are: (1) the United
States of America, its agencies, and its employees; and (2) Donald
Trump, President of the United States.
The Plaintiff alleges that President Trump and the United States of
America have been deliberately indifferent to the serious medical
threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. He argues that Defendants
were aware of the grave health risk posed by COVID-19 since January
2020 but downplayed the seriousness of the virus in a grossly
negligent manner.
The complaint alleges that many Northern State Prison inmates
became ill and died as the result of COVID-19. Despite these
tragic events, the Plaintiff contends, it took several months
before the inmates were provided with adequate measures to protect
themselves such as masks, quarantine areas, and testing. When
inmates tried to create and wear their own makeshift face masks,
they were ordered by prison staff to remove them. When some
inmates indicated trepidation about continuing their cleaning jobs
during the pandemic, they were informed that if they refused to
conduct their duties, they would be placed in "lock up." Inmates
were, therefore, forced to continue their daily jobs, such as
cleaning, without personal protective equipment. The Plaintiff
himself was forced to clean medical vehicles that transported
COVID-19 patients, despite not having access to personal protective
equipment. He eventually contracted COVID-19 and was placed into
quarantine for four months.
The Plaintiff submits that these actions were unconscionable, given
that President Trump and the United States knew about the threat
COVID-19 posed but lied about its severity. He argues that inmates
were subjected to an unreasonable health and safety risk, that some
prisoners became ill and died as a result of the Defendants'
inaction, and that someone "must be held responsible." The
complaint demands monetary relief in the amount of $1 billion.
The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. He also filed an application
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. As an initial matter,
Judge McNulty says, leave to proceed in the Court without
prepayment of fees is authorized. Judge McNulty must now review
the complaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B), to
determine whether it should be dismissed as frivolous or malicious,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
because it seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from suit.
Judge McNulty opines that the complaint will be dismissed at the
screening stage for failure to state a claim. He finds that the
Plaintiff's complaint criticizes President Trump's handling of the
COVID-19 pandemic, an action which the President took while
performing his official duties. The Plaintiff does not identify or
allege an action that President Trump took that was not performed
pursuant to his official duties or within the outer perimeter of
his official responsibility. Accordingly, the claims against both
the United States of America and Donald Trump must be dismissed
with prejudice because both are immune from suit.
Judge McNulty also opines that the Plaintiff is a prisoner acting
pro se, and is, therefore, not an appropriate representative to
bring a class action on behalf of other prisoners. Thus, at this
juncture, the complaint will not be permitted to proceed as a class
action.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge McNulty dismissed with prejudice
the claims against the United States of America and President Trump
as they are not amenable to suit under Section 1983. The Plaintiff
will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint within
30 days. An appropriate order follows.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Opinion is available
at https://bit.ly/38t4J6K from Leagle.com.
VF OUTDOOR: Valencia Labor Suit Moved From N.D. to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as BRIANA VALENCIA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. VF OUTDOOR, LLC and DOES 1 to
50, inclusive, Case No. 3:19-cv-07090, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on
December 21, 2020.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:20-cv-01795-DAD-SKO to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay minimum and regular wages, failure to
pay all overtime wages, failure to provide timely and/or off-duty
meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements, failure to pay all wages within
a timely manner, and unfair business practices.
VF Outdoor, LLC is a manufacturer of men's and boy's clothing based
in California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lonnie D. Giamela, Esq.
Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: lgiamela@fisherphillips.com
slee@fisherphillips.com
WELLS FARGO: Loses Bid to Transfer Urista Suit to W.D. Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE URISTA, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY and WELLS
FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-01689-H-AHG (S.D.
Cal.), Judge Marilyn L. Huff of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California denies the Defendants' motion to
transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Virginia.
The Plaintiff's primary residence is located in El Cajon,
California. According to him, the home is secured by a mortgage
serviced by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, a national banking
association, headquartered in South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank is a
subsidiary of Defendant Wells Fargo & Co., a corporation
incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Francisco,
California.
On March 25, 2020, in response to the economic damage beginning to
be felt by Americans throughout the country, the United States
Senate passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security
("CARES") Act. In relevant part, the CARES Act provided certain
homeowners experiencing financial hardships because of COVID-19
with the option to request up to 180 days of forbearance on their
mortgage. As the Plaintiff contends, the Defendants are
financially incentivized to place the mortgage loan accounts that
they service into forbearance.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants placed his mortgage loan
account into the forbearance program without his consent. He
suggests that his account was placed into forbearance because his
spouse clicked on an informational link on Wells Fargo's website
which offered only to 'provide more information' about possible
forbearance options. As he explains, he never made any request
whatsoever in writing, orally, or via any other means to put his
mortgage into forbearance. To support the notion that the
Defendants unilaterally placed his mortgage account into
forbearance, the Plaintiff cites to several authorities in his
complaint claiming that the Defendants have engaged in similar
conduct.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was harmed by the Defendants'
placement of his mortgage loan account into a forbearance program
because it negatively impacted his creditworthiness, made him
unable to refinance his home, and caused a "loss of the interest on
the payments he has been timely making." Consequently, he filed a
complaint against the Defendants on Aug. 29, 2020. The Plaintiff
brings three claims against the Defendants arising under California
law on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative California class.
He also brings claims for injunctive relief and unjust enrichment
against the Defendants on his own behalf and on behalf of a
putative nationwide class.
By the present motion, the Defendants move to transfer the case to
the Western District of Virginia under the first-to-file rule. The
Defendants contend that the case is substantially similar to two
cases currently pending in the Western District of Virginia ("VA
cases"), each of which, as they explain, were filed before the
instant action. Thus, they assert, the first-to-file rule counsels
in favor of deference to the VA cases. Accordingly, they request
the Court to transfer the case to the Western District of
Virginia.
Judge Huff holds that the first-to-file rule does not counsel in
favor of transfer, even assuming for the sake of argument that the
Defendants could make a strong showing under each of the
aforementioned first-to-file rule factors. The Court already has a
related case pending before it that it cannot transfer to the
Western District of Virginia, Healy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No.
20-CV-01838-H-AHG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2020). Thus, transferring the
case to the Western District of Virginia would neither eliminate
the need for duplicative litigation nor the risk of inconsistent
judgments; these issues are inevitable. As such, transferring the
case pursuant to the first-to-file rule is not warranted because
transfer would only shift the burden of adjudicating this case from
the district to the Western District of Virginia.
Further, the Judge states, the relevant Section 1404(a) factors
also weigh in favor of keeping the case in the district. The
Plaintiff chose to litigate in this forum, where he resides, and
where his encumbered property is located. Even though this is a
class action, his choice is entitled to deference because there is
no evidence that he engaged in forum shopping and both him and the
Defendants have significant contacts with the forum, including
those that gave rise to the action.
Finally, the Judge finds that the Defendants' contentions that the
"crux" of the case does not lie in California are not persuasive.
The case involves predominately California class claims, which
arise out of Defendants' mortgage servicing operations relating to
real property located in California. Further, the case primarily
deals with California law, with which the Court is likely to be
more familiar. Accordingly, the Judge, in her discretion, denies
the Defendants' motion to transfer the action without prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Dec. 16, 2020 Order is available at
https://bit.ly/38shxtW from Leagle.com.
[*] Jones County, Iowa to Join Opioid Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jake Bourgeois, writing for CascadePioneer, reports that Jones
County is joining a class-action lawsuit aimed at the role played
by opioid manufacturers, distributors and chain pharmacies and
their alleged contribution to the opioid epidemic.
The lawsuit goes after opioid distributors and manufacturers for
fraud for misrepresenting the safety of using opioids. Jones County
Attorney Kristofer Lyons said Dec. 8 the closest comparison to this
type of lawsuit was the one brought against tobacco companies a
couple decades ago. However, while that litigation was handled at
the state level, this will be handled at the county level.
"The more counties that sign up and participate, the better," Lyons
said.
As of Dec. 8, the law firm being recommended by Iowa State
Association of Counties (ISAC), Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, Crueger
Dickinson LLC and von Briesen & Roper, already had 47 of the 99
Iowa counties on board.
"It's important to present a united front," Lyons said.
While nothing was yet determined, Lyons felt it was important that
the county get involved. In a ZOOM, Lyons said a law firm
participating in the case thinks things are moving toward a
settlement, a statement he reiterated the following week.
"ISAC would not be pushing us in this direction so hard if they
didn't think there was an actual shot at getting these things
settled relatively quickly," he said.
Money earned in the settlement could go to reimburse some of the
funds spent toward programs to help curb the addiction to opioids.
The supervisors approved engaging the firm as their counsel during
their Dec. 15 meeting. [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 ***