/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 16, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 48 Headlines AGEAGLE AERIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 27 Deadline ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Joint Stipulation to Certify Class Action Filed ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 5th Cir. APACHE CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline ATHENEX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Whitehaven Coal Mine Expansion BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Testone Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending BAUSCH HEALTH: Facing Eaton Proposed Class Action in Canada BAUSCH HEALTH: Gutierrez Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit BAUSCH HEALTH: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Putative Class Suit BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Appeals Final Approval of Settlement BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Sues Over Crop Input Price Manipulation BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Judge Okays Timing Chain Class Settlement BEE SWEET: Amaro Files Suit in E.D. California BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending BLACKBAUD INC: Data Breach Class Action Pending in South Carolina BLUEBIRD BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline BOSS ART: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending BYTEDANCE LTD: Settles Tiktok Privacy Class Action for $92MM CAPTAIN FIN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Securities Class Suit Underway CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court Approves Settlement with Soileau et al. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Kater Suit Granted Final Approval CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Thimmegowda Suit Approved CLASSIC SEAFOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 6 Deadline CLOVER HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Deadline CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers May be Part of Class Action CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Racism in the Workplace CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Fails to Protect Inmates, Class Action Says CRYPTOZOIC ENTERTAINMENT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EAT GOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EBIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 23 Deadline ERGOGENESIS WORKPLACE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit Launched EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: Proposed Class Action Filed in Saskatchewan FACEBOOK INC: Judge Okays $650MM Class Action Settlement FRANCE: Racial Profiling Class Action Against Police Ongoing FUBOTV INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline GENERAL MOTORS: Renewed Bid for Conditional Certification Filed GOOGLE LLC: Mr. Sweepy Files Online Advertising Class Action Suit GOOGLE LLC: SCOTUS Ruling May Act as Bellwether in Class Actions GRIDDY ENERGY: Banned from Texas Power Market Amid Class Action GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Being Shifted to Other Providers HAIN CELESTIAL: Lawrence Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food HANNA ANDERSSON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York HILTON MANAGEMENT: Zakay Law, APLC and JCL Law File Class Action HOSA TECHNOLOGY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ICG AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York IMMUNOVANT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 20 Deadline IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline INDIANA: Tully Files Certiorari Petition in Civil Rights Suit INFINITY Q: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 27 Deadline INFINITY Q: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline INVESTORS ALLEY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ITTELLA INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York J.P. MORGAN: Roeder Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit JOHN HOGUE: ESOP Participants Win Class Certification JOHN WETZEL: McMillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates JP MORGAN: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class for Settlement LEGEND NUMISMATIC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 3 Deadline LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway LION AIR: Girardi Allegedly Failed to Disburse Settlement Funds LOWRY FARMS: 30 Days Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought LUXEMBOURG: Business Lobby Group Says Class Action Law Too Broad MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 3rd Cir. NEW SOUTH WALES: To Ban Firefighting Foams Following Class Actions NEXTEP INC: Loomis Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits ONTRAK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline PACIFICORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Negligence in Beachie Creek Fire PANERA BREAD: Ahmad Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline RENEWABLE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Regulator Inquiries Amid Class Actions SA POWER NETWORK: Victims Launch $150MM Legal Class Action SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice Saskatchewan: Move to Delay Humboldt Bus Crash Suit Challenged SASKATCHEWAN: Proposed Class Action Filed in Over COVID-19 SEQWATER: Wivenhoe, Somerset Class Action Partially Settled SHREVEPORT, LA: Court Awards More Than $9M to Billing Class Suit SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Class Action Tossed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification TIKTOK INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing in Illinois and California TRICIDA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims TRUMP CORP: RICO Class Action Pending in New York U.S. BORAX: Jungers Files Suit in E.D. California UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Inspect and Maintain Aircraft, Suit Says UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hernandez FLSA Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Tarovisky Suit UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Hutchinson Files Suit in D. Conn. VANDA PHARMA: Robbins LLP May Face Damages Caused by Lawsuit VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline VIACOMCBS INC: Broadcast TV Spot Advertising Related Suit Underway VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Water Leaks WELLS FARGO: Droesch Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso Sues for Invasion of Privacy WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit WORKHORSE GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline WORLD WRESTLING: Seeking $500,000 in Legal Fees Over Dismissed Suit XL FLEET CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline XL FLEET: The Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline [*] Dallas Law Firm to Sue Zantac Manufacturers Over Cancer Link [*] Defense Bar Calls for More Oversight in MDL [*] Florida COVID-Related College Refund Suits Making Slow Progress ********* AGEAGLE AERIAL: Glancy Prongay Reminds of April 27 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming April 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AgEagle Aerial Systems Inc. ("AgEagle" or the "Company") (NYSE: UAVS) securities between September 3, 2019 and February 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your AgEagle 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/ageagle-aerial-systems-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On February 18, 2021, Bonitas Research published a report alleging, among other things, that AgEagle "was a pump & dump scheme orchestrated by Alpha Capital Anstalt ('Alpha Capital'), AgEagle founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott and other UAVS insiders to defraud US investors." The report also alleged that "in April 2020 rumor of a partnership between Amazon . . . & AgEagle was started by a promotional video uploaded to AgEagle's founder and former chairman Bret Chilcott's daughter's personal website and youtube account" but that "we have found no evidence of any 'major e-commerce customer.'" In mid-2020, AgEagle received over $23 million in proceeds from registered direct offerings. Then, in fourth quarter 2020, an Amazon spokesperson stated that the company does not have any dealings with AgEagle whatsoever. On this news, AgEagle's share price fell $5.13, or 36.4%, to close at $8.96 per share on February 18, 2021, 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) AgEagle did not have a partnership with Amazon and in fact never had any relationship with Amazon; (2) rather than correct the public's understanding about a partnership with Amazon, defendants were actively contributing to the rumor that AgEagle had a partnership with Amazon; 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 AgEagle securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 27, 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. View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210311005323/en/ Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] ALEXIAN VILLAGE: Joint Stipulation to Certify Class Action Filed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLA SMITH on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ALEXIAN VILLAGE OF MILWAUKEE, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-01308-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), the parties agreed to stipulate to certification of the proposed Rule 23 Class for settlement purposes only and as defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt front-line care employees employed by Defendant in such positions as Resident Assistant, Certified Nursing Assistant, Activity Assistant, and Activity Coordinator, within the three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, who received alleged non-discretionary compensation, such as retention bonuses, on-call bonuses, and holiday bonuses, that was not incorporated into said employees' regular rates of pay for overtime compensation purposes." The parties stipulate that Plaintiff Carla Smith is an appropriate Class Representative because she was employed as an hourly paid, non-exempt front-line care employee of the Defendant during the relevant statutory period, received alleged non-discretionary compensation, and did not have the same incorporated into her regular rate of pay for overtime compensation purposes and, thus, was subject to the same compensation practices as the members of the Rule 23 Class. The parties further stipulate that Walcheske & Luzi, LLC are qualified, experienced, and generally able to conduct the litigation, and, therefore, are appropriate Class Counsel. Alexian is a senior living provider in Milwaukee, Wisconsin that offers residents Assisted Living and Nursing Homes. A copy of the Parties' joint motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OvojJk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240 Brookfield, Wisconsin 53005 Telephone: (262) 780-1953 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com The Defendant is represented by: Sofija Anderson, Esq. Casey M. Kaiser, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 111 E. Kilbourn, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 291-5536 E-mail: sanderson@littler.com ckaiser@llittler.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Cody Appeals Ruling in Insurance Suit to 5th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Andrea Cody, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANDREA CODY, TRAEVION LOVE, BRITTANY BURK, and DANA WHITEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and ALLSTATE COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 3:19-CV-1935, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16, 2021, Judge Ed Kinkeade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the Defendants' Second Amended Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. Plaintiffs Cody, Love, Burk, and Whitfield were insured under separate "but materially identical" automobile polices issued by Defendants Allstate Fire or Allstate County. Under the Policy for Plaintiffs Cody, Burk, and Whitfield, respectively, Defendant Allstate Fire provides coverage for "direct and accidental loss to the covered auto" that results from "collision with another object or by upset of that auto or trailer" or for loss that is "not caused by collision" subject to the relevant Declarations indicating such coverage. Plaintiff Love's Policy provides that Defendant Allstate County "will pay for direct and accidental loss to the covered auto and for loss caused by collision" subject to the Declarations indicating such coverage. The term "loss" is not defined under the Policy. The Plaintiffs each had "an accident" involving their respective automobile that was covered by the Policy--Plaintiff Cody on Aug. 27, 2017, Plaintiff Love on Dec. 20, 2017, Plaintiff Burk on Nov. 12, 2018, and Plaintiff Whitfield on Aug. 28, 2017. Each Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendants for property damage and, in each instance, the Defendants concluded that the automobile was a total loss. The Defendants then determined the value of that vehicle and subtracted the relevant deductible. For Plaintiffs Cody and Love, the Defendants added an amount for sales tax and also "DMV fee." Plaintiff Whitfield received an additional amount for sales tax as well as a "license and transfer fee." Plaintiff Burk received only the value on her total-loss vehicle after Defendant also subtracted the "salvage-retain value." The Plaintiffs dispute the valuation method the Defendants used in calculating the actual cash value of their total-loss vehicles. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of Judge Kinkeade's order dismissing the case. The appellate case is captioned as Cody v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 21-10220, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrea Cody, Traevion Love, Brittany Burk, and Dana Whitfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND, P.L.L.C. 3165 McCrory Place Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com Defendants-Appellees Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company and Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company are represented by: Roger D. Higgins, Esq. THOMPSON, COE, COUSINS & IRONS, L.L.P. 700 N. Pearl Street Plaza of the Americas Dallas, TX 75201-2832 Telephone: (214) 871-8256 E-mail: rhiggins@thompsoncoe.com APACHE CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Apache Corporation. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Apache Corporation (NASDAQ: APA) Class Period: September 7, 2016 - March 13, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021 Shareholders with $400,000 losses or more are encouraged to contact the firm 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) Apache intentionally used unrealistic assumptions regarding the amount and composition of available oil and gas in Alpine High; (2) Apache did not have the proper infrastructure in place to safely and/or economically drill and/or transport those resources even if they existed in the amounts purported; (3) these misleading statements and omissions artificially inflated the value of Apaches operations in the Permian Basin; 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. To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Apr. 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming April 30, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. ("Aquestive" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AQST) securities between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Aquestive investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. Aquestive is a specialty pharmaceutical company. Its most advanced proprietary product candidate is Libervant, a buccal soluble film formulation of diazepam for the treatment of recurrent epileptic seizures. On December 2, 2019, Aquestive announced the completion of the rolling submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") for Libervant Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters. On September 25, 2020, Aquestive announced receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA stating that the NDA would not be approved in its current form. According to the CRL, "in a study submitted by the Company with the NDA, certain weight groups showed a lower drug exposure level than desired." The Company stated that it "intends to provide to the FDA additional information on PK modeling to demonstrate that dose adjustments will obtain the desired exposure levels." On this news, Aquestive's stock price fell $2.64 per share, or approximately 35%, to close at $4.97 per share on September 28, 2020. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) data included in the Libervant NDA submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (2) the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and (4) 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. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aquestive securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 30, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] ATHENEX INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX). 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. Athenex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATNX) Class Period: August 7, 2019 to February 26, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 On March 1, 2021, Athenex announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a complete response letter (CRL) for the company's New Drug Application for oral paclitaxel plus encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. In the CRL, the FDA cited safety risks to patients and uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of the objective response rate (ORR) which might have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the blinded independent central review. The FDA further recommended that "Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the population in the U.S." The FDA also noted that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity would be required for this cancer treatment to be approved. On this news, shares of Athenex stock fell approximately 55% in one day, to close at $5.46 per share. The complaint, filed on March 3, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19 conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR; (iv) that the Company's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommended a new such clinical trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Athenex class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/ATNX About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over Whitehaven Coal Mine Expansion ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Burton, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action against a coal mine extension that was set to begin on March 2 could make it more difficult for coal mines to be approved in Australia on the basis of intergenerational equity and climate change, if the claimants prove successful. The landmark claim, by a group of eight teenagers from across Australia, was set to begins on March 2 in Melbourne's Federal Court and is expected to last for five days, but a judgement may not be made for several months. The students argue that Australia's Environment Minister Susan Ley has a duty of care to protect them from climate change and the expansion of Whitehaven Coal's Vickery coal mine in New South Wales state will contribute to climate change and endanger their future. "In the community, there is an expectation that big coal mines like this do get approved at federal level and that is precisely the reason we are concerned," said principal David Barnden of Equity Generation Lawyers. "This is about emissions and the contribution to climate change, and harm to people who are children today." Ley's office did not immediately respond to a request from Reuters for comment, but she told local media she was unable to comment while a court case was underway. The Vickery open-cut coal mine would produce mostly metallurgical coal for steel-making as well as some higher grade thermal coal and is waiting on final approval from the minister. It would create 450 ongoing jobs during operations with a net A$1.2 billion ($930 million) state economic benefit, Whitehaven estimates. "Our position in relation to the litigation . . . is that the legal claim has no merit and should be dismissed," Managing Director and CEO Paul Flynn said in a statement. "As the Australian economy starts to recover from the impacts of COVID-19, it is vital that major employment-generating investments in the economy are not delayed by legal claims that have no substance." Coal is Australia's second-most valuable resource export, worth an estimated A$37 billion in the financial year to June, government figures show. Climate change has been a divisive topic in Australia, one of the world's largest per capita carbon emitters. The country's conservative government has won successive elections on a platform of supporting Australia's dominant fossil fuel sectors. [GN] BARLEAN'S ORGANIC: Testone Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL TESTONE, COLLIN SHANKS, and LAMARTINE PIERRE, on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v. BARLEAN'S ORGANIC OILS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-00169-JLS-BGS (S.D. Calif.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on May 20, 2021, to enter an order certifying the following Classes pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3): -- The California Class "All persons in California who, between January 24, 2015 and the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and not for resale;" and -- The New York Class "All persons in New York who, between January 24, 2016 and the date the Class is notified of certification, purchased any of the Barlean's Coconut Oils for household use and not for resale." Barleans provides organic oil products. The Company offers flax, omega, fish, and specialty oils, as well as seeds and olive leaf products. A copy of the Plaintiff's notice of motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OJhWSB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul k. Joseph, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC 3150 Cabrillo Bay Ln. San Diego, California 92110 Telephone: (619) 767-0356 Facsimile: (619) 331-2943 E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com - and - Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Melanie Persinger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 353-0404 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com BAUSCH HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss RICO-Related Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is still pending. Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured's consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. A Special Master appointed by the Court has recommended that the Company's motion to dismiss be denied, but a final decision is still pending with the Court. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Facing Eaton Proposed Class Action in Canada ----------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries are facing a proposed class action proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton vs. Teva Canada Limited, et al. The company and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton vs. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company disputes the claims against it and will defend itself vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Gutierrez Appeals Dismissal of Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit entitled, Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the court's order of dismissal. On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss on all claims and dismissed the case with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Subsidiaries Continue to Defend Putative Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's subsidiaries continue to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724). The Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (MDL) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724). The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company's subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which have been brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, States, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have been or are expected to be consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. In July 2019, 87 health plans commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed and the case has been put in deferred status. In May 2020, seven health plans commenced an additional action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed. The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend itself vigorously. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAUSCH HEALTH: Timber Hill Appeals Final Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Bausch Health Companies Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the court's order granting final approval of the settlement in the consolidated class action suit entitled, In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658, is pending. On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of this settlement. On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of the Court's final approval order, which overruled its objections to the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and options. The deadline for other parties to file notices of appeal from the final approval order is March 2, 2021. Bausch Health Companies Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets a range of pharmaceutical, medical device, and over-the-counter (OTC) products primarily in the therapeutic areas of eye health, gastroenterology, and dermatology. The company operates through four segments: Bausch + Lomb/International, Salix, Ortho Dermatologics, and Diversified Products. The company was formerly known as Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and changed its name to Bausch Health Companies Inc. in July 2018. Bausch Health Companies Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Laval, Canada. BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Schultz Sues Over Crop Input Price Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tyler Schultz, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Bayer Cropscience LP, Bayer Cropscience, Inc., Corteva, Inc., Cargill Incorporated, BASF Corporation, Syngenta Corporation, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar Solutions, Inc., Federated Co-Operatives LTD., CHS Inc., Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc., Growmark Inc., Growmark ES, LLC, Simplot AB Retain Sub, Inc., and Tenkiz, Inc., Case No. 0:21-cv-00681-WMW-KMM (D. Minn., March 10, 2021), seeks to recover injunctive relief, treble damages, and other relief as appropriate, for the Defendants' violations of federal and state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws of the several States; and seeks to represent persons and entities who purchased products used by farmers including seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides ("Crop Inputs") for their own use, and not for resale, in the United States. Relevant purchases are from at least as early as January 1, 2014 through the present, from the Defendants, or through Defendants' authorized retailers for which the Defendants charged supracompetitive prices due to their collusion and conspiracy. The complaint alleges that Defendants Bayer CropScience, Inc., Corteva, Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and BASF Corporation (the "Manufacturer Defendants"), together with Defendants Cargill Incorporated, Winfield Solutions, LLC, Univar Solutions, Inc. (the "Wholesaler Defendants"), and Defendants CHS Inc., Nutrien Ag Solutions Inc., Growmark Inc., Simplot AB Retail Sub, Inc., Tenkoz Inc., and Federated Co-Operatives Ltd. (the "Retailer Defendants"), established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels. In furtherance of their conspiracy, the Defendants have restricted and denied farmers access to relevant market information that would allow for comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions, as well as denying the Plaintiff and the Classes information about seed relabeling practices that would inform farmers as to whether they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price. Initiatives were undertaken, as early as 2014, to provide new online Crop Inputs sales platforms and to offer pricing comparison tools that would allow farmers to view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs, increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms, including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became useful to and successful with farmers. In order to keep prices supracompetitively high, and to the detriment of farmers, the Defendants conspired and coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms. These online tools and sales platforms posed a threat to the Defendants' market position and price control. According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy and boycott served its intended purpose. Online Crop Inputs sales platforms such as FBN and AgVend were unable to purchase Defendants' Crop Inputs in order to sell them on their platforms, which was devastating to the platforms and which directly harmed farmers by locking in captive distribution systems and eliminating a lower cost option for purchasing these Crop Inputs. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants' have maintained supracompetitive prices for Crop Inputs by denying farmers access to accurate pricing information and have injured farmers by forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that drastically outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices for the farmers' crops, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Schultz purchased one or more Crop Inputs. Bayer CropScience Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bayer AG, who is a multinational pharmaceutical, chemical, and agriculture company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. Christopher P. Renz, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-7300 Email: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com crenz@chestnutcambronne.com - and - Wilbert B. Markovits, Esq. Terence R. Coates, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Ste. 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Phone: (513) 651-3700 Email: bmarkovits@msdlegal.com tcoates@msdlegal.com BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Judge Okays Timing Chain Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement is final after a federal judge found the agreement fair, reasonable and adequate. The automaker was sued by owners who claim the primary timing chain assemblies have defects that cause the chains to skip on the sprockets, causing failures of the crankshafts and camshafts to function properly. The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement says the pistons and valves can bang into each other which can cause the engines to stall or completely fail. According to the BMW class action, owners are faced with repairs that can cost thousands of dollars to replace the engines and timing chain components. The timing chain lawsuit describes the involved components. Main timing chain assembly: Includes the hydraulic chain tensioner, tensioning rails, camshaft and crankshaft sprockets and the chain rails. Secondary timing chain assembly: Includes the crankshaft and counterbalance shaft sprockets, oil pump drive chain, pump drive sprocket, chain tensioner and integrated guide and tensioner rails. Vehicles included in the BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement are equipped with N20 and N26 direct injection turbocharged engines. -- 2012-2015 BMW X1 -- 2013-2015 BMW X3 -- 2015 BMW Z4 -- 2012-2015 BMW X4 -- 2014-2015 BMW 228i -- 2012-2015 BMW 320i -- 2012-2015 BMW 328i -- 2014-2015 BMW 428i -- 2012-2015 BMW 528i BMW denies all the allegations in the class action and says it stands behind its products. BMW Timing Chain Lawsuit Settlement Agreement (Final) For a customer who submits a valid claim showing they paid for the diagnosis, repair and/or replacement of a failed timing chain module and/or failed oil pump drive chain module and the failure occurred within 7 years of the in-service date and 70,000 miles: That customer will receive reimbursement of 100% of the invoice amount for work performed at an authorized BMW dealership, and also for work performed at an independent service center (ISC). Reimbursement is subject to a monetary cap for repairs done at an ISC of up to $3,000 for the timing chain module/oil pump drive chain module, and a monetary cap up to $7,500 for engine failure directly related to timing chain failure. The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement further says valid claims for BMW vehicles with prior repairs done after 7 years of the in-service date or 70,000 miles (whichever occurs first), but before 8 years of the in-service date or 100,000 miles, if the work is performed at either a BMW dealer or ISC the work will be reimbursed according to the following terms. -- 70,001 to 80,000 miles and within 7 to 8 years in service: BMW pays 75% / Customer pays 25% -- 80,001 to 90,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW pays 55% / Customer pays 45% -- 90,001 to 100,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW pays 40% / Customer pays 60% -- 100,001 miles and above or or more than 8 years in service: Customer pays 100% The above terms are subject to same reimbursement monetary caps mentioned above. BMW Timing Chain Lawsuit Settlement (Extended Warranty) The settlement also says there is an "extended warranty" program for repair or replacement of the defective parts (timing chain module, oil pump drive chain module and engine if damaged by chain failure) in vehicles up to 8 years or 100,000 miles. However, a customer will still have to pay something for repairs because the extended warranty is based on these terms. -- 70,001 to 80,000 miles and within 7 to 8 years in service: BMW pays 75% / Customer pays 25% -- 80,001 to 90,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW pays 55% / Customer pays 45% -- 90,001 to 100,000 miles and less than 8 years in service: BMW pays 40% / Customer pays 60% Finally, for one year from the effective date of the BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement, any affected vehicle with less than 100,000 miles that experiences timing chain module failure, oil pump drive chain module failure or engine damage due to timing chain module or oil pump drive chain module failure may go to a BMW dealer for repairs. However, the same monetary percentage terms above apply, meaning customers will have to partially pay for repairs. According to the final BMW timing chain settlement documents, 44 customers objected to the settlement and 141 customers requested to be excluded from the settlement. The majority of objections relate to the extended warranty time duration and the 100,000 mileage limitation. Judge Cathy L. Waldor found the objections lacked merit and gave the BMW timing chain settlement her final approval. Attorneys for BMW customers have requested up to $3.7 million for fees and expenses. The BMW timing chain lawsuit settlement was finalized in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Gelis, et al. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Law Offices of Thomas P. Sobran, and Nagel Rice, LLP. [GN] BEE SWEET: Amaro Files Suit in E.D. California ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc. The case is styled as Rafael Marquez Amaro, Javier Barrera, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Bee Sweet Citrus, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-00382-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal., March 11, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Agriculture Acts for Farmworker Rights. Bee Sweet Citrus -- https://www.beesweetcitrus.com/ -- has been supplying premium citrus around the globe for over 30 years.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq. Mario Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, A Prof. Law Corp. P.O. Box 1998 Bakersfield, CA 93303 Phone: (661) 750-9881 Email: mhart@farmworkerlaw.com mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com - and - Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey Szamet, Esq. Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Ariel J. Stillershulman, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 990-3800 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com liane@kingsleykingsley.com ari@kingsleykingsley.com BERRY CORP: Bid to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in Torres Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Berry Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to apppoint lead plaintiff filed in the putative class action suit initiated by Luis Torres, is pending. On November 20, 2020, Torres, individually and on behalf of a putative class, filed a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Berry Corp. and certain of its current and former directors and officers, including the company's Board Chair and Chief Executive Officer Trem Smith and Chief Financial Officer and Board member Cary Baetz. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of a putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired (i) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (IPO); or (ii) Berry Corp.'s securities between July 26, 2018 and November 3, 2020 (the Class Period). In particular, the complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements during the Class Period and in the offering materials for the IPO, concerning the Company's business, operational efficiency and stability, and compliance policies, that artificially inflated the Company's stock price, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of Berry Corp.'s common stock declined following release of its financial results for the third quarter of 2020 on November 3, 2020. The complaint does not quantify the alleged losses but seeks to recover all damages sustained by the putative class as a result of these alleged securities violations, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On January 21, 2021, multiple plaintiffs filed motions in the Torres Lawsuit seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Once those motions are decided, and the court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the lead plaintiff will likely file an amended complaint, and defendants will then move to dismiss. Berry said, "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action." Berry Corporation operates as an upstream energy company. The Company engages in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas reserves. Berry serves customers throughout the United States. The company is based in Dallas, Texas. BLACKBAUD INC: Data Breach Class Action Pending in South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Fischenich, writing for The Free Press, reports that an investigation by Minnesota State University into the improper sharing of nonpublic personal information of students, staff and donors found that 142,226 individuals were affected -- more than triple the number reported in December. But most of the private data was not in the database of a cloud services company that was hacked last summer in a ransomware attack, according to the report completed in February. The investigation was launched after the discovery of a ransomware attack of the computer systems of Blackbaud, a South Carolina-based cloud services company used by the fundraising arms of numerous nonprofits and colleges, including MSU and South Central College. The hackers potentially had access to a variety of personal information compiled by MSU and SCC and stored with Blackbaud. The final report completed by Michael Menne, MSU's chief information security officer, listed the information provided to the MSU Foundation for fundraising purposes that should have been kept private. "Not-public data shared with the Foundation included country of birth, gender, last 4 digits of Social Security Number, marital status, birth date, TechID, high school and years of attendance, ethnicity, and status as a first-generation college student," Menne's report stated. However, virtually none of that data was accessed during the Blackbaud security breach -- the only exception being people's date of birth. "Financial data, social security numbers and passwords were not accessed as part of the Foundation's Blackbaud security incident," according to the report, which was issued following an investigation conducted by a team of nine MSU officials. SCC did not do any further investigation since informing 13,282 students, staff, alumni and donors on Dec. 18 of the Blackbaud breach. In SCC's case, the final conclusion was that the college had improperly shared with its fundraising foundation full Social Security numbers, dates of birth, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses and campus ID numbers and that the data "may have" been in the compromised Blackbaud database. Hospital systems, nonprofit organizations and colleges across the country had information stored with Blackbaud, including 12 of the state colleges and universities in the system of 37 public higher education institutions in Minnesota. Other Minnesota state colleges impacted by the data breach were Alexandria Technical and Community College, Bemidji State University, Inver Hills Community College, Itasca Community College, Metropolitan State University, Minnesota State University-Moorhead, Ridgewater College, Saint Paul College, Southwest Minnesota State University, and St. Cloud Technical and Community College. Both MSU's report and SCC's earlier report state that there has been no "final disposition of disciplinary action" against any employee for violating the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which obligates colleges to protect the privacy of students and staff. Under the law, SCC and MSU should have supplied their fundraising foundations only "directory information" such as a student's name, field of study and dates of attendance and "limited directory information" such as a mailing address or email address. According to MSU's report, the state college system "is reviewing its contractual relationship with Blackbaud and will ensure additional security measures are in place." The Blackbaud hacker, who has not been caught, demanded an undisclosed amount of ransom from Blackbaud in return for destroying the data he or she had obtained. The company paid the ransom and claimed that it received confirmation that the hacker had destroyed the private data. A class-action lawsuit filed against Blackbaud by some of the millions of affected Americans is being heard in a U.S. District Court in South Carolina. [GN] BLUEBIRD BIO: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of April 13 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Jakubowitz Law on Feb. 28 disclosed that securities fraud class action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation, follow the links below. bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLUE) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT BLUE: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/bluebird-bio-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1 Class Period: May 11, 2020 - November 4, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 13, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) data supporting bluebird's BLA submission for LentiGlobin for SCD was insufficient to demonstrate drug product comparability; (ii) Defendants downplayed the foreseeable impact of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic on the Company's BLA submission schedule for LentiGlobin for SCD, particularly with respect to manufacturing; (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, it was foreseeable that the Company would not submit the BLA for LentiGlobin for SCD in the second half of 2021; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Astrazeneca Plc (NYSE:AZN) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT AZN: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/astrazeneca-plc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1 Class Period: May 21, 2020 - November 20, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 29, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) initial clinical trials for the Company's COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222, had suffered from a critical manufacturing error, resulting in a substantial number of trial participants receiving half the designed dosage; (b) clinical trials for AZD1222 consisted of a patchwork of disparate patient subgroups, each with subtly different treatments, undermining the validity and import of the conclusions that could be drawn from the clinical data across these disparate patient populations; (c) certain clinical trial participants for AZD1222 had not received a second dose at the designated time points, but rather received the second dose up to several weeks after the dose had been scheduled to be delivered according to the original trial design; (d) AstraZeneca had failed to include a substantial number of patients over 55 years of age in its clinical trials for AZD1222, despite this patient population being particularly vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19 and thus a high priority target market for the drug; (e) AstraZeneca's clinical trials for AZD1222 had been hamstrung by widespread flaws in design, errors in execution, and a failure to properly coordinate and communicate with regulatory authorities and the general public; (f) as a result of (a)-(e) above, the clinical trials for AZD1222 had not been conducted in accordance with industry best practices and acceptable standards and the data and conclusions that could be derived from the clinical trials was of limited utility; and (g) as a result of (a)-(f) above, AZD1222 was unlikely to be approved for commercial use in the United States in the short term, one of the largest potential markets for the drug. Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX) CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT EBIX: https://claimyourloss.com/securities/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=13180&from=1 Class Period: November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021 The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; 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. Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: JAKUBOWITZ LAW 1140 Avenue of the Americas 9th Floor New York, New York 10036 T: (212) 867-4490 F: (212) 537-5887 [GN] BOSS ART: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BOSS Art Culture, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BOSS Art Culture, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02143 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. BOSS Art Culture -- https://bossartculture.com/ -- offers motivational wall art.[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 BRIGHTHOUSE LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Newton Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Brighthouse Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the purported class action suit entitled, Richard A. Newton v. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company (U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed May 8, 2020), is pending. Plaintiff has filed a purported class action lawsuit against Brighthouse Life. Plaintiff was the owner of a universal life insurance policy issued by Travelers Insurance Company, a predecessor to Brighthouse Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all persons who own or owned life insurance policies issued where the terms of the life insurance policy provide or provided, among other things, a guarantee that the cost of insurance rates would not be increased by more than a specified percentage in any contract year. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, suppression and concealment, and violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, including punitive damages, interest and treble damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and declaratory relief. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss in June 2020 and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Brighthouse Life Insurance Company offers a range of individual annuities and individual life insurance products. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Holdings, LLC, which is a direct wholly-owned subsidiary of Brighthouse Financial, Inc. BYTEDANCE LTD: Settles Tiktok Privacy Class Action for $92MM ------------------------------------------------------------ PitchBook reports that TikTok owner ByteDance has offered to pay $92 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the company of illegally harvesting user data on teenagers, according to reports. The settlement was proposed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and reportedly still needs court approval. ByteDance denied the allegations and said it proposed the settlement to avoid further litigation, The Wall Street Journal reported. [GN] CAPTAIN FIN: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Captain Fin Co. LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Captain Fin Co. LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02149 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Captain Fin Co. -- https://captainfin.com/ -- offers Surfing Products & Apparel (keel fins, twin fins, quad fins, thruster fins, longboard and single fins).[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 CHARLES SCHWAB: Crago Order Routing Securities Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company and its subsidiary Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. (CS&Co) continues to defend a class action suit related to Crago Order Routing. On July 13, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of customers executing equity orders through Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The lawsuit names CS&Co and CSC as defendants and alleges that an agreement under which CS&Co routed orders to UBS Securities LLC between July 13, 2011 and December 31, 2014 violated CS&Co's duty to seek best execution. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. After a first amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2017. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and in a decision issued December 5, 2017, the court denied the motion. Defendants have answered the complaint to deny all allegations, and are vigorously contesting the lawsuit. The Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) is a savings and loan holding company. Incorporated in 1986, CSC engages, through its subsidiaries, in wealth management, securities brokerage, banking, asset management, custody, and financial advisory services. The company is based in Westlake, Texas. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Dougan Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to Ninth Circuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Elaine Dougan filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELAINE DOUGAN, Plaintiff v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-00818-JLR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 10, 2021, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants Plaintiff Dougan's motion to certify the Court's Oct. 27, 2020 order for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). Ms. Dougan's suit is a proposed class action arising from her allegations that TCP sent emails with subject lines advertising false or misleading discounts to Ms. Dougan and others in Washington. TCP is a specialty retailer that sells apparel, accessories, footwear, and other items for infants and children online and in retail stores nationwide, including in Washington. Ms. Dougan alleges that TCP creates purported list prices for its products which are inflated far above the products' regular and true selling prices. As a result, when TCP offers discounted and sale prices, the list prices and claimed discounts are false and inflated because TCP rarely or never offers the products at their stated list price. The Plaintiff files a petition for permission to appeal pursuant to Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P., after the District Court granted her motion to certify for interlocutory appeal. The appellate case is captioned as Elaine Dougan v. The Children's Place, Inc., Case No. 21-80014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner ELAINE DOUGAN, for herself, as a private attorney general, and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Che Corrington, Esq. Daniel Hattis, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Avenue Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8633 E-mail: che@hattislaw.com dan@hattislaw.com - and - Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 936 Woodlawn Drive Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Telephone: (805) 233-8062 E-mail: pkl@hattislaw.com Defendant-Respondent THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC. is represented by: Michelle Doolin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: (858) 550-6000 E-mail: mdoolin@cooley.com - and - Christopher Brian Durbin, Esq. COOLEY LLP 5 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 E-mail: cdurbin@cooley.com CHURCHILL DOWNS: Court Approves Settlement with Soileau et al. -------------------------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the District Court issued a Final Order and Judgement approving the settlement in John L. Soileau, et al. v. Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) and objectors have until April 9, 2021, to file a notice of appeal. On April 21, 2014, John L. Soileau and other individuals filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Permanent Injunction, and Damages-Class Action styled John L. Soileau, et. al. versus Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC, Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC (Suit No. 14-3873) in the Parish of Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana. The petition defined the "alleged plaintiff class" as quarter horse owners, trainers and jockeys that have won purses at the "Fair Grounds Race Course & Slots" facility in New Orleans, Louisiana since the first effective date of La. R.S. 27:438 and specifically since 2008. The petition alleged that Churchill Downs Louisiana Horseracing, LLC and Churchill Downs Louisiana Video Poker Company, LLC ("Fair Grounds Defendants") have collected certain monies through video draw poker devices that constitute monies earned for purse supplements and all of those supplemental purse monies have been paid to thoroughbred horsemen during Fair Grounds' live thoroughbred horse meets. La. R.S. 27:438 requires a portion of those supplemental purse monies to be paid to quarter-horse horsemen during Fair Grounds' live quarter-horse meets. The petition requested that the District Court declare that Fair Grounds Defendants violated La. R.S. 27:438, issue a permanent and mandatory injunction ordering Fair Grounds Defendants to pay all future supplements due to the plaintiff class pursuant to La. R.S. 27:438, and to pay the plaintiff class such sums as it finds to reasonably represent the value of the sums due to the plaintiff class. On August 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to their petition naming the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association 1993, Inc. ("HBPA") as an additional defendant and alleging that HBPA is also liable to plaintiffs for the disputed purse funds. On October 9, 2014, HBPA and Fair Grounds Defendants filed exceptions to the suit, including an exception of primary jurisdiction seeking referral to the Louisiana Racing Commission. By Judgment dated November 21, 2014, the District Court granted the exception of primary jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission. On January 26, 2015, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request for supervisory review of the Judgment. On August 24, 2015, the Louisiana Racing Commission ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing or a right of action to pursue the case. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the District Court, which affirmed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District Court's decision with the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Louisiana Racing Commission's ruling and remanded the matter to the Louisiana Racing Commission for further proceedings on June 13, 2018. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Motion for Rehearing on July 12, 2018 and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied the Fair Grounds Defendants' Writ of Certiorari seeking review of that decision on November 14, 2018. The parties had previously attempted to mediate the matter in October 2018 but were unsuccessful. Thereafter, the parties resumed informal settlement discussions, and, as a result, the Company established an accrual for an immaterial amount in the third quarter of 2019. The parties submitted a settlement agreement to the District Court on February 14, 2020, following the Louisiana Racing Commission's approval to transfer the matter to the District Court for approval and administration of the settlement agreement on February 12, 2020. At a hearing on February 18, 2020, the District Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and set certain deadlines relating to actions to be taken by class members. The settlement agreement requires, among other items, the Fair Grounds Defendants to (i) pay a certain out-of-pocket amount that is within the amount for which we established an accrual in the third quarter of 2019, and (ii) support legislation that allocates a specified amount of video poker purse funds to quarter horse purses for races at Fair Grounds with maximum annual payout caps that are not deemed material. On June 13, 2020, the legislation addressed in the settlement agreement was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor of Louisiana. The settlement includes a release of claims against the Fair Grounds Defendants in connection with the proceeding, although individual plaintiffs may opt-out. If there are opt-out claims in excess of $50,000, the settlement will be voided, unless the parties agree to stipulate otherwise. The settlement agreement is subject to certain conditions, including court approval. After the parties entered into the settlement, legal counsel for six objecting plaintiffs filed an amended petition with the District Court. After a hearing on July 20, 2020, the District Court dismissed the amended petition. The objecting plaintiffs filed a notice of their intention to seek a writ with the Louisiana Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit related to the dismissal of the amended petition, which was denied. The fairness hearing with the District Court relating to the terms of the settlement agreement occurred on October 7, 2020, and November 17, 2020, and the parties have submitted post-trial briefing and proposed final judgments. Objecting plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the February 2020 Order appointing class counsel certifying a class for settlement purposes. On January 28, 2021, the District Court issued a Final Order and Judgement approving the settlement. The objector's appellant brief in support of their appeal of the February 2020 preliminary approval was filed on February 9, 2021, and the Fair Grounds Defendants' brief is due on March 1, 2021. The objectors have until April 9, 2021, to file a notice of appeal of the January 28, 2021 Final Order and Judgment. Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Kater Suit Granted Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement in Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated. On April 17, 2015, the Cheryl Kater v. Churchill Downs Incorporated class action lawsuit was filed in the United District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging, among other claims, that the Company's "Big Fish Casino" operated by the Company's then-wholly owned mobile gaming subsidiary Big Fish Games, Inc. violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, by facilitating unlawful gambling through virtual casino games (namely the slots, blackjack, poker, and roulette games offered through Big Fish Casino), and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, treble damages, and injunctive relief. On January 9, 2018, the Company sold Big Fish Games to Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of Aristocrat Leisure Limited, an Australian corporation, pursuant to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 29, 2017, by and among the Company, Big Fish Games and Aristocrat. Pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify Aristocrat for the losses and expenses associated with the Kater Litigation for Big Fish Games, which is referred to in the Stock Purchase Agreement as the "Primary Specified Litigation." After the Washington District Court dismissed the case with prejudice on November 19, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Washington District Court's dismissal of the complaint on March 28, 2018. The complaint was amended on March 20, 2019, to add Big Fish Games as a party and to assert claims on behalf of an additional plaintiff, Suzie Kelly. On May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Kater litigation and the Thimmegowda litigation. The agreement in principle remains contingent on final court approval by the Washington District Court. Under the terms of the settlement, which will take effect only after final court approval of the proposed class settlement: (i) a total of $155.0 million will be paid into a settlement fund. The Company will pay $124.0 million of the settlement; Aristocrat will pay $31.0 million of the settlement; (ii) all members of the nationwide settlement class who do not exclude themselves will release all claims relating to the subject matter of the lawsuits; and (iii) Aristocrat has agreed to specifically release the Company of any and all indemnification obligations under the Stock Purchase Agreement arising from or related to the Kater Litigation and Thimmegowda Litigation, including any claims of diminution of value of Big Fish Games and any claims by any person who opts out of the proposed class settlement. On August 31, 2020, the Washington District Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of class action settlement agreement. The Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement on February 11, 2021. The Company's settlement contribution will be made by March 26, 2021. Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CHURCHILL DOWNS: Settlement in Thimmegowda Suit Approved -------------------------------------------------------- Churchill Downs Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval of the class action settlement in Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Purchaser, Aristocrat Leisure Limited. On February 11, 2019, the Manasa Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games, Inc. class action lawsuit was filed in the Washington District Court alleging, among other claims, that "Big Fish Casino," which is operated by Big Fish Games, violated Washington law, including the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and seeking, among other things, return of monies lost, reasonable attorney's fees, injunctive relief, and treble and punitive damages. On May 22, 2020, the parties entered into an agreement in principle to settle the Kater and Thimmegowda Litigations. On August 31, 2020, the Washington District Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary approval. On December 14, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of class action settlement agreement. The Washington District Court entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement on February 11, 2021. The Company's settlement contribution will be made by March 26, 2021. Churchill Downs Incorporated operates as a racing, gaming, and online entertainment company in the United States. It operates through Racing, Casinos, Online Wagering, and Other Investments and Corporate segments. Churchill Downs Incorporated was founded in 1928 and is headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. CLASSIC SEAFOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Classic Seafood Group, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Classic Seafood Group, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02120 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Classic Seafood Group, Inc. -- http://www.classicseafoodgroup.com/ -- is located in Ayden, North Carolina and is part of the Food Wholesalers Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com CLOVER HEALTH: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of April 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Feb. 28 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ: CLOV) ("Clover") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded securities between October 6, 2020 and February 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and/or purchased or acquired Clover securities pursuant or traceable to Clover's registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the December 2020 Merger. Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Clover publicly traded securities during the Class Period may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435); toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/clover-health-investments-corp-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=clover According to the complaint, Clover provides health insurance services. Clover was taken public through a reverse merger with IPOC, a Special Purpose Acquisition Company (the "Business Combination"). Prior to the Business Combination, IPOC traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The Class Period commences on October 6, 2020, when Clover issued a press release announcing its intention to become a public company through a merger with IPOC. On October 20, 2020, Clover filed its registration statement and preliminary proxy statement/prospectus on a Form S-4 with the SEC (the "Registration Statement"). The Registration Statement was amended on December 9, 2020 and December 10, 2020, and was declared effective on December 11, 2020. The Registration Statement touted Clover's growth as strong and organic. On February 4, 2021, before market hours, Hindenburg Research published a research report that revealed that Clover's flagship platform, Clover Assistant, was the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") investigation for a variety of issues, including illegal kickbacks, marketing practices, and undisclosed related-party transactions. Hindenburg discovered that Clover's sales growth was not driven by technology, but by deceptive sales practices. Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $1.72 per share, or 12.3%, to close at $12.23 per share on February 4, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.18 per warrant, or 5%, to close at $3.39 per warrant on February 4, 2021. On February 5, 2021, before the market opened, Clover filed a Form 8-K disclosing that the SEC was conducting an "investigation and requesting document and data preservation for the period from January 1, 2020, to the present, relating to certain matters that are referenced in the [Hindenburg Research report]." Following this news, Clover common stock (CLOV) fell $0.53 per share, or 4.3% during intraday trading on February 5, 2021, and Clover warrants (CLOVW) fell $0.28 per warrant, or 8.2% during intraday trading on February 5, 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Clover was under active investigation by the DOJ for at least 12 issues ranging from illegal kickbacks, to marketing practices, to undisclosed related-party deals; (2) the DOJ's investigation presented an existential risk to Clover, since it derives most of its revenues from Medicare; (3) Clover's sales were driven by a major undisclosed related-party deal and misleading marketing targeting the elderly, not its purported "best-in-class" technology; (4) a significant portion of Clover sales were from an undisclosed relationship between Clover and a brokerage firm controlled by Clover's Head of Sales; and (5) as a result, the defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Clover investors may, no later than April 6, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) (610) 667-7706 info@ktmc.com [GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 6 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Clover Health Investments, Corp. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. CLOV Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV) CLOV Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Clover Health Investments, Corp. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv) Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 http://www.zlk.com[GN] CLOVER HEALTH: Vincent Wong Reminds of April 6 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on Feb. 28 disclosed that class actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you. SolarWinds Corporation (NYSE:SWI) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/solarwinds-corporation-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 5, 2021 Class Period: October 18, 2018 - December 17, 2020 Allegations against SWI include that: (1) since mid-2020, SolarWinds Orion monitoring products had a vulnerability that allowed hackers to compromise the server upon which the products ran; (2) SolarWinds' update server had an easily accessible password of 'solarwinds123'; (3) consequently, SolarWinds' customers, including, among others, the Federal Government, Microsoft, Cisco, and Nvidia, would be vulnerable to hacks; (4) as a result, the Company would suffer significant reputational harm; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements about SolarWinds's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. QuantumScape Corporation f/k/a Kensington Capital Acquisition Corp. (NYSE:QS) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/quantumscape-corporation-f-k-a-kensington-capital-acquisition-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: March 8, 2021 Class Period: November 27, 2020 - December 31, 2020 Allegations against QS include that: (1) that the Company's purported success related to its solid-state battery power, battery life, and energy density were significantly overstated; (2) that the Company is unlikely to be able to scale its technology to the multi-layer cell necessary to power electric vehicles; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Clover Health Investments, Corp. (NASDAQ:CLOV) If you suffered a loss, contact us at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/clover-health-investments-corp-loss-submission-form?prid=13177&wire=1 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 6, 2021 Class Period: October 6, 2020 - February 3, 2021 Allegations against CLOV include that: (i) Clover was the recipient of a Civil Investigative Demand from the DOJ; (ii) much of Clover's sales are driven by a major related party deal that Clover not only failed to disclose but took active steps to conceal; (iii) Clover's subsidiary Seek Insurance failed to disclose its relationship with Clover and misled consumers as to its purported independence; (iv) Clover's software was in fact rudimentary; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] CNC OILFIELD: Saunders Suit Seeks FLSA Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PHILIP SAUNDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CNC OILFIELD SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-00023-NDF (D. Wyo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: 1. allowing his coworkers -- other vacuum truck drivers working for CNC in Wyoming who were subject to the same pay scheme -- to receive notice of this collective action and stop the statute of limitations from running on their valuable back wage claims; and 2. conditionally certifying this action. The Plaintiff contends the CNC did not pay its vacuum truck drivers the overtime wages required under federal law. CNC instead paid the drivers straight-time only when working overtime at its facilities, and nothing at all for overtime when they worked more than 40 hours per week as a driver. These practices violate the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Plaintiff adds that his evidence meets and surpasses the lenient standard for conditional certification, and the Court should certify this collective action and order notice to be sent to putative class members. CNC offers vacuum trucks, mixing plants, and containment berms. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at http://bit.ly/3ctaWBCat no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 3 Riverway, Ste. 1910 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone 713 999 5228 E-mail: matt@parmet.law - and - Dustin T. Lujan, Esq. LUJAN LAW OFFICE 1601 Capitol Ave., Ste. 310 No. A559 Cheyenne, WY 82001 Telephone: (970) 999 4225 E-mail: wyoadvocate@gmail.com COMMONWEALTH BANK: 750,000 Customers May be Part of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNEWS.com.au reports that Slater and Gordon says more than 750,000 people was on March 1 set to receive a Federal Court notice advising they may be eligible to be part of a consumer credit insurance class action against Commonwealth Bank. The action alleges that many people were sold "junk" credit card and personal loan insurance that was of little or no value and that many customers would not have been eligible to make successful claims. The firm has also commenced similar class actions against ANZ and Westpac, while a suit against NAB in 2019 secured a $49.5 million settlement. Slater and Gordon says Commonwealth Bank had said it would provide refunds as part of a remediation program, but only a small portion of customers had been compensated, despite sale of the products ending in March 2018. "This move to return only a small portion of its customers premiums seems to have been a tokenistic effort to protect the bank's brand, rather than a genuine attempt to make good its past wrongdoing," Practice Group Leader Andrew Paull said. Consumers may be eligible to join the action if they were issued with a consumer credit insurance policy since January 1 2010, have paid a premium and have not been paid back in full. More than two million people have now received court-ordered notices advising they may be eligible to participate in one of the four class actions, which is part of the Get Your Insurance Back campaign. [GN] CONDUENT INC: Continues to Defend ERS Puerto Rico Electric Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Conduent Incorporated said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Employees' Retirement System of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority et al v. Conduent Inc. et al. On March 8, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of certain federal securities laws in connection with the company's statements and alleged omissions regarding the company's financial guidance and business and operations was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint seeks certification of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from February 21, 2018 through November 6, 2018, and also seeks unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company moved to dismiss the class action complaint in its entirety. In June 2020, the court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the claims to proceed. The company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Conduent said, "The Company maintains insurance that may cover any costs arising out of this litigation up to the insurance limits, and subject to meeting certain deductibles and to other terms and conditions thereof. The Company is not able to determine or predict the ultimate outcome of this proceeding or reasonably provide an estimate or range of estimate of the possible outcome or loss, if any, in excess of currently recorded reserves." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Conduent Incorporated is a business process services company. The Company provides business process services with expertise in transaction-intensive processing, analytics and automation. The company is based in Florham Park, New Jersey. CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Faces Class Suit Over Racism in the Workplace ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jessie Anton, writing for CBC News, reports that as it awaits certification, a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in January against Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is garnering a lot of support. The statement of claim was filed Jan. 11 on behalf of two Indigenous officers who have worked for the prison agency in Saskatchewan and Alberta, Jennifer Sanderson and Jennifer Constant. The pair are alleging systemic racism within the CSC workplace. While nothing has been proven in court, the plaintiffs allege they and other racialized colleagues were treated as though they were "inmates and not like equals" by both CSC staff and management. As a result, the statement of claim alleges it has created an "'us versus them' mentality" within the prison agency. Since the suit was launched in January, Aden Klein, the Vancouver-based lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his law firm has received more than 30 calls from other former and current racialized CSC workers wanting to be a part of it. "They're alleging similar things -- they're alleging racist taunts and inappropriate jokes at their expense. They're alleging not ever being considered for promotions, despite going through all the requirements required," Klein explained. "Really, it boils down to differential treatment for those individuals." Late in January, CSC spokesperson Kyle Lawlor told CBC News in an emailed statement the prison agency is aware of the suit, but wouldn't comment on it directly as it's before the courts. However, Lawlor noted measures are in place to help prevent and eliminate racism and discrimination at CSC. A "workplace wellness and employee well-being strategy" implemented last fall -- which aims to make addressing such complaints easier for CSC workers -- was listed as an example. "CSC does not tolerate these behaviours and is committed to providing a workplace that is healthy, supportive and free of harassment and discrimination," Lawlor wrote. "Fostering a work environment that is safe and inclusive for everyone is our top priority." 'We'll get through it as a group' Sanderson, a former correctional officer at the Saskatchewan Penitentiary and one of the lead proposed plaintiffs in the case, said it's comforting to see others joining in. "I think that if there are enough people that come together and understand that we'll get through it as a group, there will be positive [outcomes]," she said. At this time, Klein said CSC's council is still reviewing the case. However, he noted, the class-action certification process could take anywhere from months to years. With more former and current CSC workers willing to get on board, should it get certified, Klein said it hopes to prove how widespread the issue is. "When you look at every individual circumstance, it feels individual -- it could conceivably be connected to that one person -- but when you start gathering all these stories and see that they're all so similar, it shows that it's a systemic problem," he explained. A mother of six from the Wahpeton Dakota Nation, Sanderson noted she ultimately chose to launch the suit to set an example for her children and in honour of her late mother, a Duck Lake residential school survivor. "You don't ever think that you'll have to continue on the fight after your family member's gone," a teary-eyed Sanderson said. "You think that society is progressing and government agencies are progressing, but they're failing." [GN] CORRECTIONAL SERVICE: Fails to Protect Inmates, Class Action Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie Amminson and Ethan Lycan-Lang and halifaxexaminer.ca reports that a former federal inmate has launched a proposed class action lawsuit against Correctional Service Canada, claiming the service fails to protect inmates of prisons for women against sexual misconduct and abuse. The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, claims Correctional Service Canada (CSC) does not take adequate measures to prevent staff-to-inmate sexual violence, and that it fails to properly investigate reports of sexual assault when they are brought forward. The suit is awaiting court approval. A statement of claim submitted to the court outlines a number of allegations, including a failure on the part of CSC to uphold the Charter rights of inmates of prisons for women, specifically their rights to security, equality, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. "The stories and experiences I've heard described to me by current and former inmates of female correctional facilities describe a systemic problem," said Mike Dull, the lawyer representing the class, in an interview. "Hopefully this lawsuit will shine a light on, and create an impetus for, policy and procedural changes that will better protect individuals within those institutions." The lead plaintiff is a woman named Sara Tessier, representing all victims of abuse in prisons for women in Canada. Tessier is a former inmate of Nova Institution for Women in Truro, N.S. Tessier said the power imbalance between prison guards and inmates creates an environment where abuse can occur without accountability. "You see it all the time, that power imbalance. And it's just a very scary place . . . . there's that fear of what's going to happen if you come forward with something," she said in an interview. "That type of environment is literally a playground for predators to carry out their criminal activity and get away with it," she said. "And you see that from the inside." Sexual abuse is underreported among the general population, and according to advocates, inmates are even less likely to report. Inmates fear they will not be believed or that they will face reprisal if they come forward. Victims might also feel shame, embarrassment, or think their own behaviour contributed to their assault. Emma Halpern, executive director of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Mainland Nova Scotia, hopes this class action will help change that. "Part of why we're doing this is to make it a little easier for individuals to come forward," she said in an interview. "And that's why we're supporting this class action. And to get a sense, quite frankly, of the scope and magnitude of this problem, and then to pressure the system to address it." The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) will provide support for victims by ensuring they can access therapy and counselling services throughout the legal process. In a statement emailed to the Examiner, Isabelle Robitaille, a spokesperson for CSC, said the service can't comment on the matter because it hasn't served with the lawsuit. The Globe and Mail reported that CSC doesn't keep data on employees who've been charged with sexual assault. In its annual report released in October 2020, the Office of the Correctional Investigator found that CSC lacked clear protocol for addressing incidents of sexual abuse, resulting in "a culture of silence and indifference." In a news release issued, CAEFS called for a public inquiry into staff-to-prisoner sexual coercion, violence and abuse. Robitaille said CSC tracks all employee cases of misconduct, and that the service will refine its data to more specifically track incidents involving sexual coercion and violence. "Correctional Service Canada (CSC) takes allegations of sexual coercion and violence seriously and does not tolerate any breach of the law or CSC policies," she wrote. "CSC employees are expected to carry out their duties with professionalism and consistently with the Services policies and mission - and of course, the law." Robitaille also wrote that the service's current reporting system "contributes to safer institutions by identifying and responding to issues early and encouraging offenders to resolve conflicts in appropriate ways." CSC recently updated its policy that requires staff to report any criminal allegations, Robitaille said. She said the service will also develop a directive specific to sexual violence that will address "the reluctance of alleged victims to come forward in certain situations." Tessier hopes the class action will lead to better protection for inmates and more accountability in Canadian prisons. "[Prisons] are not successful in helping people and addressing the issues that brought people there in the first place. All they do is cause more harm," she said. "I want to make a change to that." [GN] CRYPTOZOIC ENTERTAINMENT: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cryptozoic Entertainment, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cryptozoic Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02153 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Cryptozoic Entertainment -- https://cryptozoic.com/ -- is an American publisher of board and card games, trading cards and collectibles based on both licensed and original intellectual properties.[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 EAT GOOD: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eat Good Fish, Inc. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eat Good Fish, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02108 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eat Good Fish, Inc. -- https://goodfish.com/ -- offers salmon skin snacks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com EBIX INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds Investors of April 23 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) securities between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Ebix investors have until April 23, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. On February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020. On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. 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 there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; 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 Ebix securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 23, 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 Ebix 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] EBIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of April 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Ebix, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. EBIX Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX) EBIX Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 23, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/ebix-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Ebix, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) there was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; 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. 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 http://www.zlk.com[GN] ERGOGENESIS WORKPLACE: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ergogenesis Workplace Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ergogenesis Workplace Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02150 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ErgoGenesis -- http://ergogenesis.com/-- manufactures and markets premium-priced, highly customizable, ergonomic chairs and ergonomic workspace accessories.[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 EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: COVID-19 Class Action Lawsuit Launched ------------------------------------------------------------ 620ckrm.com reports that a class-action lawsuit regarding the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Parkside Extendicare nursing home where many died as a result of the virus has been filed. Tony Merchant is the lawyer who filed the lawsuit. His statement of claim contains several allegations and that Extendicare was negligent, callous and displayed wanton disregard for vulnerable residents they were caring for. 41 people died and 200 residents and staff became ill after an outbreak at the home on the city's south side. Extendicare is saying it will respond to these allegations through the appropriate legal channels in due course. The provincial ombudsman is currently investigating the outbreak after being asked to do so by the provincial government in late January. [GN] EXTENDICARE PARKSIDE: Proposed Class Action Filed in Saskatchewan ----------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed in Saskatchewan against a long-term care operator alleging it lacked proper resources to handle COVID-19. Documents filed at Regina's Court of Queen's Bench say the novel coronavirus spread through different Extendicare locations last fall. One of those was Extendicare Parkside in Regina, where a statement of claim says at least 41 residents have died of COVID-19. The claim from Merchant Law Group says reports by the Saskatchewan Health Authority and internal audits had warned of pre-existing issues, including a lack of single rooms. "For residents who survived the Extendicare COVID-19 outbreaks, they endured, and continue to endure harsh and intolerable treatment at Extendicare Saskatchewan locations," it reads. "They were locked down in their rooms, feared for their safety and lives, knew other residents were dying around them and were unable to have visits with their loved ones and family members." The suit also alleges that Extendicare didn't have proper infection controls in place. It is seeking damages for loss of life, funeral expenses, emotional distress on family members and residents, as well as medical treatment for long-term COVID-19 effects. None of the allegations have been proven in court. "Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our residents, and supporting our families and team members," said an emailed statement from Extendicare. "We share in the sadness of our community over the devastating toll COVID-19 has taken on Extendicare Parkside and other long-term care homes across the country." "We'll respond to the allegations through the appropriate legal channels in due course." One of the plaintiffs listed in the suit, Marie Albert, was a short-term resident at Parkside who contracted COVID-19 and now has to be on oxygen and has limited mobility. "She survived but with devastating impacts on her enjoyment of life," the claim reads. The suit says Albert had been in a four-bed room until recently. When two residents moved, she was placed n a two-person room. Extendicare Inc. and Extendicare Canada own or lease five long-term care homes and four long-term retirement communities in Saskatchewan, says the claim. Other proposed class actions have been filed in Canadian courts against care homes that have had COVID-19 outbreaks, including a claim in Ontario against Extendicare. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Judge Okays $650MM Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Bibhu Pattnaik, writing for Yahoo!Finance, reports that a federal judge has approved a $650 million settlement of a class-action privacy lawsuit against Facebook that claimed the company used its facial recognition feature without user consent. What Happened: In 2015, Chicago attorney Jay Edelson filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Inc (NASDAQ: FB) in Cook County Circuit Court. According to the lawsuit, Facebook violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, by failing to get consent before using facial-recognition technology, which scans photos uploaded by users to create and store faces digitally, The Verge has reported. Along with the settlement amount, the judge also ordered the 1.6 million members of the class-action lawsuit in Illinois to be paid "as expeditiously as possible." Why It Matters: According to the order by Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California, the three named plaintiffs will each receive $5,000 and others in the class-action lawsuit will get at least $345 each, the report said. Donato described the settlement as a "landmark result" and said it "is one the largest settlements ever for a privacy violation." In a statement, Facebook said, "We are pleased to have reached a settlement so we can move past this matter, which is in the best interest of our community and our shareholders." Facebook isn't the only company to run into the Illinois law. Sony Corp (NYSE: SNE) doesn't sell its robot dog, aibo, which has facial recognition technology, in the state because of the law. [GN] FRANCE: Racial Profiling Class Action Against Police Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Dodmn, writing for France 24, reports that President Emmanuel Macron recently lamented that the French have become "a nation of 66 million prosecutors". He may have a point: Whether battling climate change or racial profiling by police, activists and ordinary citizens are pursuing groundbreaking legal action to force his government into action. When France's government hosted a roundtable on relations between the police and the public earlier in February, part of consultations aimed at bolstering confidence in law enforcement, the panel invited to the interior ministry in Paris raised more than a few eyebrows. There was no shortage of officials in attendance, including senior police officers and gendarmes, union representatives from both forces, four members of parliament and four mayors, and even a guest from Canada's Royal Mounted Police. But somehow organisers did not think to invite the public. There were no ordinary citizens, no community representatives, no activists or grassroots campaigners, and none of the academics whose investigations into the chronic problems affecting French policing have been dismissed and ignored over the years. As a veteran campaigner for community outreach, Omer Mas Capitolin, a founder of the grassroots Community House for Supportive Development, would have been a useful addition to the ministry's panel. Instead, his NGO counts among six organisations, including Amnesty International, which have launched France's first class-action lawsuit aimed at forcing the government to tackle systemic discrimination by the police. For Mas Capitolin, the lawsuit marks a new step in a decades-long struggle to raise awareness of racial profiling that targets France's "visible minorities", as non-white citizens are commonly referred to. "I've been to all the rallies, spoken to countless politicians, and listened, time and time again, to their empty promises. But nothing ever changes," he says in an interview with FRANCE 24. "The law is a pillar of our democracy and a precious tool," he adds. "We've seen around the world that many great social advances result from legal action." 'Attack' the state While France famously does not compile official statistics based on religious faith, ethnicity or skin colour, racial discrimination by law enforcement -- particularly in immigrant-rich city suburbs -- has been widely documented. A study conducted by France's National Centre for Scientific Research has shown that Blacks are 11.5 times more likely to be checked by police than Whites, and those of Arab origin are seven times more likely. In a landmark 2016 case, France's highest court ruled for the first time that police had illegally stopped three men based on racial profiling, setting more specific rules to ensure checks are not discriminatory. At the height of mass protests against racism last summer, Jacques Toubon, then France's human rights ombudsman, raised the alarm over widespread discrimination and a "crisis of public confidence in the security forces" in a report that made for grim reading. He urged a reversal of what he described as a "warring mentality" in law enforcement. The difficulty, says lawyer Slim Ben Achour, a protagonist of the 2016 ruling and one of the lawyers involved in the current class-action lawsuit, is to get governments to act upon these injunctions and bring about "systemic change". Using a law introduced in 2016 by the former justice minister, Christiane Taubira, Ben Achour and his colleagues have served the government with formal legal notice of demands for concrete steps to end racial profiling by police. The law gives French authorities four months to talk with the plaintiffs about how they can meet the demands. If the plaintiffs are left unsatisfied, the case will go to court. "Past lawsuits involved only individual plaintiffs and resulted -- when successful -- in damages being paid," Ben Achour tells FRANCE 24. "In this case, we're not looking for damages. We want judges to force the government into meaningful reforms." Ben Achour credits Taubira's 2016 law with giving "vulnerable parties" unprecedented access to the judiciary, allowing them to team up with bigger players, like Amnesty, in class actions. He says it has also brought about a change in both tactics and thinking. "So far, racial profiling complaints have mostly been used in a defensive capacity, when the police dragged our clients to court," he explains. "Now we can go on the offensive, we can sue the state," he adds, using the French word attaque, which translates as both "sue" and "attack". Broken promises Turning to the courts is not an instinctive reaction in France, a nation more accustomed to street protests, canvassing and petitioning lawmakers. "It is not in our culture like it is in the US," Ben Achour concedes, pointing to changes forced upon the New York Police Department as a model for France. The largest police department in the US underwent major reform following a 2013 class-action lawsuit brought by a dozen Black and Brown New Yorkers who said they were stopped solely because of their race. A federal judge ruled the NYPD had violated the civil rights of tens of thousands of New Yorkers, dismissing claims that police checks were a necessary crime-fighting tool. Stops dropped precipitously under the new regime, but crime did not rise. "Class actions allow us to change society through legal means," says Ben Achour, particularly when politicians fail to deliver on promised change. He points to former president François Hollande, who famously reneged on a campaign pledge to introduce a form of written receipt for all identity checks -- a measure long advocated by campaigners against racial profiling. "Hollande's promised reform offered a 'traditional' path towards meaningful change," the lawyer explains. "That path was interrupted, now legal action offers an alternative route." The alternative route's growing popularity has prompted academics in a variety of fields to take an interest in litigation. Reflecting on the declining effectiveness of traditional forms of activism, such as strikes and street protests, the left-wing sociologist Geoffroy de Lagasnerie has stressed the importance of pursuing legal avenues to push certain causes -- and lamented a French backwardness in the field. In his 2020 book, Sortir de notre impuissance politique (Ending our political impotence), Lagasnerie notes that court action to uphold the rights of migrants has often resulted in defeat for the government. He points to recent rulings that vindicated activists who helped migrants illegally cross the border from Italy and compelled the French state to provide migrant camps in Calais with basic sanitation. "The law is one of the few powers that can compel a government to back down or act - perhaps the only one," Lagasnerie writes, urging activists to "multiply legal 'guerilla actions', summon European and international law, be imaginative in our use of the law." 'The case of the century' In recent years, many of the most sensational attempts to hold governments accountable through the courts have involved climate campaigners, leading to convictions in countries as diverse as Pakistan, the Netherlands and Colombia. In a first for France, a court ruled earlier in February that the French state was guilty of failing to keep its promises to slash carbon emissions under the 2015 Paris climate accord. Hailed as a "historic win for climate justice", the ruling set a two-month deadline for the government to come up with concrete measures to further cut emissions. While France is likely to appeal the verdict, a Dutch precedent has given environmental campaigners reason to be confident. In 2019, the Dutch government lost its appeal against a landmark ruling that ordered it to slash greenhouse emissions. Officials are now scrambling to cut emissions, for instance by closing fossil-fuel plants ahead of schedule. Urgenda, an environmental group, fought the successful case on behalf of some 900 Dutch citizens. The same model inspired the French lawsuit, dubbed the "Affaire du siècle" (Case of the Century) and spearheaded by four NGOs following a petition signed by 2.3 million people. Carole-Anne Sénit, a political scientist who specialises in civil society activism at the University of Utrecht, says such cases signal the emergence of "new coalitions of mobilised players", bringing together ordinary citizens and a variety of non-state actors, from Greenpeace to smaller groups with experience of litigation, such as the French group Notre affaire à tous. "When two million people sign a petition in less than a month, it counters the notion of an increasingly apolitical and apathetic public," she tells FRANCE 24, stressing that online mobilisations complement other forms of activism, including street protests and lobbying. Cases like the Affaire du siècle, Sénit adds, also help to "restore the people's faith in their ability to bring about change" -- particularly in the "repressive context" of a health emergency that has led governments to drastically curtail civic space. Covid lawsuits The devastating social and economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic have generated a surge in legal complaints levelled at government officials, prompting President Emmanuel Macron to liken the French to "a nation of 66 million prosecutors" in one of the trademark "petites phrases" that infuriate his critics. As early as March 4, 2020, two weeks before the first nationwide lockdown, a group of health workers asked France's highest administrative court to force the government to provide them with FFP2 face masks. Dozens more legal complaints soon followed, calling for stricter lockdown measures, the requisitioning of factories to produce masks and antiseptic gel, or improved sanitation in overcrowded prisons. The flurry of complaints, almost all of which were dismissed, prompted commentators to speak of litigation "going viral". "Lawsuits targeting the state seldom succeed; but when they do, they encourage others to come forward," says lawyer Julien Lalanne, noting that one undesired effect is to "overburden courts that were already stretched". Lalanne says a key aim of the increased litigation is to set legal precedents on issues that had not previously been brought before the courts, thereby expanding both the judges' area of competence and the state's liability. "France has long privileged the political arena," he tells FRANCE 24. "We're now witnessing a shift towards leaning on judges in order to put pressure on politicians." To meet the challenge, the judiciary is having to step up its communication, Lalanne adds, bringing the arcane world of litigation "outside of the courtrooms and into the public domain". 'Concrete solutions' Writing in the Conversation, Jessy Bailly, a political scientist at the University of Aix-Marseille, notes that lawsuits brought against the state need not always be successful in court to be considered a success – at least not when it comes to communication. "Lawsuits have a spectacular character simply by targeting the giant that is the state and by inspiring copycats," Bailly writes. "This ability to catch the media's attention enables them to put pressure on the government, which is well aware that an intransigent public opinion is watching." By coinciding with the start of the interior ministry's highly-publicised consultations on police reform, the class-action lawsuit against racial profiling was able to undercut the government's communication and catch the public eye, at least briefly. Mas Capitolin is hoping the case will help raise awareness of rampant injustice and of a growing divide that hurts both the police and the public, alienating youths even as the country ponders how to tackle "separatist" ideologies. "People need to realise what it means to be Black or Arab in parts of the country, to fear the police when you have done nothing, to tell your own son to look down and keep it shut when he meets an officer," says the veteran activist. "They also need to challenge a policing culture that leads so many officers to take their own lives," he adds, referring to the scourge of suicides among French officers. But Mas Capitolin and his fellow plaintiffs will not be satisfied with a mere PR victory. Their aim is to foster social change through the courts. "We're not only denouncing the problem; we're offering concrete solutions -- that's what democracy is about," he says, pointing to proposed reforms put forward by the six NGOs in conjunction with the lawsuit. They include a change in the penal code to demand accountability in stops, and an end to the longstanding practice of gauging police performance by the number of tickets issued or arrests made, benchmarks that encourage baseless identity checks. "We could have opted for a criminal lawsuit, but we're not after a few bad apples in the police," adds Ben Achour, the lawyer. "We're aiming at the heart of the problem; and that means going for the state." [GN] FUBOTV INC: The Schall Law Reminds Investors of April 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against fuboTV Inc. ("fuboTV" or "the Company") (NYSE: FUBO) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 23, 2020 and January 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 19, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/3bQBgXi to participate. 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. FuboTV's growth in profitability and subscribers was unsustainable past the seasonable surge in subscriber levels. The Company's product offerings suffered from undisclosed cost increases. The Company could not successfully capitalize on its sports wagering opportunity or successfully act as a sports book. The Company was not in a position to achieve long term advertising revenue growth. 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 fuboTV, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Renewed Bid for Conditional Certification Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY C. GALLAGHER and ROBERT WYATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 3:19-cv-11836-RHC-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs renewed their motion for the conditional certification of the following collective class: "All persons who are or have been employed by or worked for General Motors LLC ("GM") in the capacity of non-union contract workers compensated on an hourly basis and who worked under the management or supervision of a direct GM employee during any time from June 20, 2016 forward. This class excludes "computer employees" whose primary duties consist of (1) application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, (2) design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, (3) design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems, or (4) a combination of the aforementioned duties requiring the same level of skills. A worker is not an excluded "computer employee" simply because the worker engaged in the manufacture or repair of computer hardware and related equipment or has work that is highly dependent upon, or facilitated by, the use of computers and computer software programs. To be excluded as a "computer employee," a worker must receive at least $684 per week or $27.63 per hour. GM includes any predecessor in interest, agent, subsidiary, alter ego, and/or any other entity operating the subject business or division of the subject business." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court: 1. approve notice to the class of putative plaintiffs on an expedited basis; 2. find that Plaintiffs and the putative class members are "similarly situated" for purposes of notice and discovery; 3. direct the Court-approved notice be provided to the putative class members by Plaintiffs; and 4. direct the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff the name, email address and postal address, telephone number, dates of employment, location(s) of work assignment at GM, last four digits of the social security number, date of birth, job title(s), and name of the contract house supplying the worker for each putative class member; all to be compiled in an Excel spreadsheet format within 14 days of the Court's Order so that Plaintiffs may effectuate the notice process expeditiously and cost-effectively. This motion is made pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the Plaintiffs complaint, thay have renewed their motion as expeditiously as possible given GM's delay in discovery production for over one year based on GM shutdowns and Covid-19 impediments. General Motors is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Detroit that designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes vehicles and vehicle parts, and sells financial services, with global headquarters in Detroit's Renaissance Center. A copy of the Plaintiff's renewed motion for conditional certification dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2OMzWvx at no extra charge. [CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel W. Rucker, Esq. Steve J. Weiss, Esq. Hertz Schram PC 1760 S. Telegraph Road, Suite 300 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48302 Telephone: (248) 335-5000 E-mail: drucker@hertzschram.com sweiss@hertzschram.com The Attorney for Allegis Global Solutions is: Megan A. Scheiderer, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP Attorney for Allegis Global Solutions 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112, 816-983-8295 E-mail: megan.scheiderer@huschblackwell.com - and - Ryan C. Plecha, Esq. KOSTOPOULOS RODRIGUEZ, PLLC 550 W. Merrill Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Birmingham, MI 48009, 248-268-7800 E-mail: ryan@korolaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. David J. Rowland, Jr., Esq. Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Alex w. Karasik, Esq. Andrew Welker, Esq. Kevin J. Lesinski, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 233 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 8000 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 E-mail: gmaatman@seyfarth.com drowland@seyfarth.com jriley@seyfarth.com akarasik@seyfarth.com awelker@seyfarth.com klesinski@seyfarth.com GOOGLE LLC: Mr. Sweepy Files Online Advertising Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- David McCabe, writing for New York Times, reports that Google is facing antitrust cases from Europe's top competition enforcer, the Justice Department and attorneys general from more than 30 states and territories. Then there are the lawsuits from people like Mr. Sweepy. The operator of a website called Sweepstakes Today, Mr. Sweepy -- a nickname used by Craig McDaniel -- says Google used its power over online advertising to bleed his website dry. In December, he filed a lawsuit against Google, saying he was entitled to "substantial" damages. His case is one of what is expected to be a host of private antitrust lawsuits stemming from the government cases against Google and Facebook. Already, more than 10 suits echoing the federal and state cases have been filed against one or both of the Silicon Valley giants in recent months. Many of them lean on evidence unearthed by the government investigations. In January, for example, a media company in West Virginia sued Google and Facebook, arguing that the tech companies had worked together to monopolize the digital ad market. Its lawyers extensively cited evidence from the government cases. Legal experts say many more suits are likely to be filed this year. The suits add to the mounting legal pressure on the tech companies. Federal and state officials have filed three lawsuits against Google, saying it illegally maintained monopolies in search and the online advertising market. Lawsuits filed against Facebook by the Federal Trade Commission and a group of states could seek to break the company up. If successful, private lawsuits could be costly for Facebook and Google. The companies work with millions of advertisers and publishers every year, and Google hosts apps from scores of developers, meaning there are many potential litigants. The damages could be significant. After the United States sued Microsoft for antitrust violations a generation ago, the company paid $750 million to settle with AOL, at that point the owner of the browser Netscape, which was at the core of the government's case. "There's a fair amount of scrambling going on and folks trying to figure out what private suits might be successful and how to bring them," said Joshua Davis, a professor at the University of San Francisco's law school. Facebook declined to comment about the lawsuits. Julie Tarallo McAlister, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement that the company would defend itself against the claims. "Like other claims courts have rejected in the past, these complaints try to substitute litigation for competition on the merits," she said. The private suits follow the government ones for a simple reason: Regulators have distinct advantages when it comes to obtaining evidence. Federal and state investigators can collect internal documents and interview executives before filing a suit. As a result, their complaints are filled with insider knowledge about the companies. Private individuals can seek that kind of evidence only after they file lawsuits. If the government cases succeed against Google or Facebook at trial, the win is likely to bolster the case for private lawsuits, experts said. Lawyers could point to those victories as evidence the company broke the law and move quickly to their primary aim: obtaining monetary damages. The people bringing the cases against the tech giants include publishers, advertisers and users. Sweepstakes Today, the site run by McDaniel, aggregates prize contests from around the country. Its revenue comes from advertising that is sold partly by Google, according to McDaniel's lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status. For years, the website generated about $150,000 in annual revenue and turned a profit, according to the complaint. But its revenue has dropped since 2012, a fall that the suit blames on Google's dominance in online advertising. McDaniel, who signs some of his public messages as "Mr. Sweepy," said on a GoFundMe page he set up to help cover the costs of running the site that his revenue had "dropped like a rock" and that he could go out of business. He said Google had also harmed his earnings by classifying his site as a venue for online gambling, causing him to receive lower-quality ads. "As Google has literally taken over the internet, it is nearly impossible for companies to operate in this area without utilizing some Google service, thereby subjecting themselves to Google's arbitrary rules and policies," John Herman, McDaniel's lawyer, said in a statement. Other publishers that recently have filed antitrust complaints against Google include lyrics website Genius -- which sued Google in 2019 citing its use of Genius' lyrics data in search results, only to have its case dismissed -- and progressive magazine The Nation. Both are among the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by law firm Boies Schiller Flexner that is seeking class-action status. Another prominent law firm, Berger Montague, has also filed a complaint against Google on behalf of publishers. Patrick Madden, a shareholder at Berger Montague, and Mark Mao, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner, declined to comment. One of the suits coming from advertisers was brought by the operator of WineClubReviews.net, which says Facebook abused its power to charge more for ads. Others suits represent private citizens who use the social network. Some of the users are arguing that Facebook can use their personal data without adequately compensating them for it because it has the power of a monopoly. The sweeping government claims against Facebook have helped convince potential plaintiffs that they might have a winning case, even against huge companies like Google and Facebook. "I think it adds credibility to the allegations," said Tina Wolfson, a California lawyer who filed a private lawsuit against Facebook. But lawyers bringing the lawsuits also face difficulties. The tech companies have armies of lawyers to fight back against the suits. They may try to force the cases to go to arbitration, in which each individual claim would be weighed on its own rather than in one big group, rather than to trial. And the law includes limitations on which private citizens can sue over antitrust violations. It may also be difficult to calculate payouts. The tech giants generally offer their products free to users, and it could be difficult to calculate the money hypothetically lost. Still, the potential payouts are big, given the size of the tech companies. "You're talking about billions of dollars as, at least, potential liability," said Davis of the University of San Francisco. [GN] GOOGLE LLC: SCOTUS Ruling May Act as Bellwether in Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- James McGachie, writing for The Scotsman, reports that in data protection, the Supreme Court's decision in Lloyd v Google (to be heard at the end of April) may act as a bellwether as to how courts both north and south of the border will approach class actions. Data privacy claims are undoubtedly attractive to class action claimant lawyers and claimants alike, as such incidents tend to impact large numbers of subjects, but will likely only generate modest potential damages awards, thus often acting as a deterrent to individual proceedings given the cost inefficiency. The Lloyd case concerns a claim by Richard Lloyd, a former executive director of consumer magazine Which?, relating to Google's placing of advertising tracking cookies on iPhones using Apple's 'Safari' browser between June 2011 and February 2012. He seeks to bring the claim on a representative basis on behalf of several million individuals whom he says were affected. Whilst the Court of Appeal decision in this case appears to support opt-out representative actions predicated on the loss of control of data without consent, Google's appeal to the Supreme Court, scheduled for 27 April should provide guidance regarding the interpretation of the English procedural rules with regard to "opt in" (where potential claimants expressly sign up to be a member of the class) and "opt out" (where anyone who falls within the scope of the proposed class definition is treated as being a member of the class unless they explicitly opt-out or withdraw) litigation. Whether the Supreme Court will endorse such a significant step as "opt out", or leave Parliament to legislate, remains to be seen. The Scottish rules, whilst currently "opt in" based, already have yet-to-be-enacted "opt out" provisions. How should businesses prepare for class actions? If group proceedings are raised, businesses must assess the nature of the claims, makeup of the claimant class and potential claimant pool more generally to effectively determine the risk. Class actions, which are not geographically unique, often follow trends. Understanding the risk in one jurisdiction, which may later be faced by another, can prove invaluable. As with every litigation, it is important to quickly identify and adopt a preferred strategy. This is especially important when considering the amplified scope of a class action and the significant amount of resource needed to address it. The question that invariably must be answered is whether a business is best advised to defend the action or settle. This may be answered relatively easily depending on the liquidity of the business and, in many cases, there can be no option but to defend the proceedings. It is important this decision is made quickly so the business, and its legal team, can decide on how best to channel resources and which avenues of inquiry should be progressed. The same strategic decisions must be made when it comes to handling any media attention: good PR can prove to be a useful tool when defending class actions. However, media strategy should not dictate legal strategy. Resolving a class action is no different to resolving any other legal proceedings brought against a business. To end the dispute, both parties must come to a mutual agreement whereby the action is settled and proceeds no further. However, by their very nature, class actions often involve substantial financial sums which can challenge the liquidity of even the largest corporate entities. The growth of third party funders working with claimant lawyers in this arena further complicates settlement strategy. As such, businesses should not be afraid to be creative when it comes to the structure of a settlement as the success of the proposal hinges on the agreement of both parties. As group proceedings are in their infancy in Scotland it will take time for practitioners and Scottish courts to become accustomed to them. However, during that bedding-in process, businesses would be well advised to understand the potential risk group proceedings pose to their day-to-day operations. [GN] GRIDDY ENERGY: Banned from Texas Power Market Amid Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Beast reports that Griddy, the power company that charged customers as much as $450 per day for electricity during the catastrophic winter storm, has been banned from the state's power market. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which regulates the state energy grid, brought the hammer down on the company for nonpayment, according to Bloomberg. Further details were unavailable. Customers have also filed a class action suit against the company over the exorbitant bills. [GN] GRIDDY ENERGY: Customers Being Shifted to Other Providers --------------------------------------------------------- Neelam Bohra, writing for The Texas Tribune, reports that Texans who receive their electricity from Griddy Energy are being shifted to other providers after the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which operates the power grid for most of Texas, revoked the company's rights to operate because it missed required payments to ERCOT, according to a market notice. In all, Texas electricity providers failed to make more than $2.1 billion in payments that were due to ERCOT, according to another market notice on Feb. 26. The state entity depends on transaction fees from providers to help operate the state's electric grid. Those missed payments came after the costs for a megawatt hour of electricity jumped from an average of $35 to $9,000 during the height of the devastating winter storm that contributed to the near-collapse of the state's power grid. Griddy made headlines for sending massive bills to customers. One woman in Chambers County filed a class-action lawsuit accusing Griddy of price gouging. In the lawsuit, her attorney claimed the company charged her more than $9,000 for the week of the storm in stark contrast to her normal $200 to $500 monthly bill. Griddy passes wholesale electricity rates directly to customers, who in turn pay the company $10 a month. This differs from fixed-rate electricity plans which offer a consistent rate regardless of market conditions. Wholesale prices spiked during the storm because the winter weather temporarily knocked many power generators offline, shrinking supply and skyrocketing demand. ERCOT said it was "working closely with PUC staff and Affected Market Participants to ensure an efficient and effective transfer of customers." ERCOT spokesperson Leslie Sopko said she had no further details on Griddy's customers. In a message to customers that Griddy spokesperson Lauren Valdes shared with The Texas Tribune, the company said ERCOT ignored requests for emergency help and shut it down on Feb. 26. "It was not a choice we made," the message said. "On the same day when ERCOT announced that it had a $2.1 billion shortfall, it decided to take this action against only one company that represents a tiny fraction of the market and that shortfall." ERCOT can bar electric providers from conducting business if they make four late payments over one year, according to the entity's protocols. Griddy earlier warned customers about price hikes and encouraged them to switch to other providers, according to previous reporting by The Texas Tribune. The company also posted a blog on its website blaming the Public Utility Commission of Texas, which regulates ERCOT, for raising the wholesale market price of energy. The disastrous effects of the storm spurred daylong hearings in the Texas House and Senate on Feb. 25 and Feb. 26 where lawmakers questioned ERCOT CEO Bill Magness, PUC chairperson DeAnn Walker, and representatives from a variety of electricity providers about what went wrong. Tom Hancock, a representative for municipally-owned utility Garland Power and Light, said many providers may struggle to make their payments to ERCOT on time following the storm's aftermath. "ERCOT is due a lot of money today from market participants that could have been short," Hancock said. "We think if this domino effect is going to start to take place, that after today, we'll know about it." [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Lawrence Sues Over Toxic Metals in Baby Food ------------------------------------------------------------ Erik Lawrence, Rachel M. Frantz, Marie Mezile, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, NUTURE, INC., GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY and BEECH-NUT NUTRITION COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01287 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021), is brought for damages and injunctive relief, and to seek refunds and all other economic losses suffered by purchasers of Baby Food Products that the Defendants marketed and sold without disclosing that they were tainted with arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury ("Toxic Heavy Metals") at levels above what is considered safe for babies. On February 4, 2021, the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy of the U.S. House of Representatives released a Report concluding that the Defendants sold Baby Food Products containing concentrations of inorganic arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury at levels above what is considered safe for babies. According to the complaint, the Defendants do not disclose the Toxic Heavy Metal content of their foods on their labels or in their marketing materials, nor do they warn consumers that their Baby Food Products may contain potentially dangerous levels of Toxic Heavy Metals. The Plaintiffs purchased Baby Food Products manufactured and sold by the Defendants, unaware that the Defendants' products potentially contain Toxic Heavy Metals at levels well above what is considered safe for babies. Had the Defendants disclosed the Toxic Heavy Metal content on their product labels, or otherwise warned that their products could contain levels of Toxic Heavy Metals considered unsafe, neither the Plaintiffs nor any other reasonable consumer would have purchased the Defendants' products, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased baby foods made by Nurture and Gerber. The Defendants sells Baby Food Products throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zahra R. Dean, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Craig W. Hillwig, Esq. Barbara Gibson Aaarthi Manohar, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. 1600 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 238-1700 Email: zdean@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com chillwig@kohnswift.com bgibson@kohnswift.com amanohar@kohnswift.com - and - David H. Fink, Esq. Nathan J. Fink, Esq. FINK BRESSACK 38500 Woodward Ave; Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Phone: (248) 971-2500 Email: dfink@finkbressack.com nfink@finkbressack.com - and - Michael L. Roberts, Esq. Karen Halbert, Esq. ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A. 20 Rahling Circle Little Rock, AK 72223 Phone: (501) 821-5575 Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us karenhalbert@robertslawfirm.us HANNA ANDERSSON: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hanna Andersson, LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01314 (E.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hanna Andersson -- https://www.hannaandersson.com/ -- offers crafted for comfort and sublime softness, selection of clothes, swimsuits, and pajamas for baby, toddler, boys + girls, and even adults, designed to last.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN ALEXANDER ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Email: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com HILTON MANAGEMENT: Zakay Law, APLC and JCL Law File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco labor law attorneys, at Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC, filed a class action complaint against Hilton Management, LLC for failure to accurately and timely pay employees' wages. The Hilton Management, LLC class action lawsuit, Case No. CGC-21-589873, is currently pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court of the State of California. A copy of the Complaint can be read here. According to the lawsuit, Hilton Management, LLC allegedly violated California Labor Code Sections Sec 201, 202, 203, 204, 206.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802 by failing to: (1) pay minimum wages; (2) pay overtime wages; (3) provide required meal and rest periods; (4) reimburse employees for required expenses; (5) provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (6) provide wages when due. California Labor Code Section 226 requires an employer to furnish its employees an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece-rate, (4) all deductions, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and only the last four digits of the employee's social security number or an employee identification number other than a social security number, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer and, (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee. Hilton Management, LLC failed to provide its employees with accurate itemized wage statements that complied with all the requirements of California Labor Code Section 226. If you would like to know more about the Hilton Management, LLC lawsuit, please contact Attorney Jackland K. Hom by calling (619) 255-9047. Zakay Law Group, APLC and JCL Law Firm, APC are employment and labor law firms with offices located in California that dedicate their practices to helping employees and consumers fight back against employers and corporations for unfair employment practices. If you need help with collecting unpaid wages, wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, and other unlawful workplace conduct, contact one of their attorneys today. -THIS IS AN ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT- Media Contact Jackland K. Hom, Zakay Law Group, APLC, (619) 255-9047, jackland@zakaylaw.com SOURCE Zakay Law Group, APLC [GN] HOSA TECHNOLOGY: Monegro Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hosa Technology, Incorporated. The case is styled as Frankie Monegro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hosa Technology, Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-02144 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hosa -- https://hosatech.com/ -- offers audio and video cables, adapters and other accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com ICG AMERICA: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ICG America Inc. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ICG America Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-02139 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. ICG America -- http://www.icgamerica.com/-- is an e-commerce and internet marketing holding company with a number of subsidiaries specializing in subscription e-commerce, gourmet food & wine, home brewing, grilling accessories, and mobile entertainment.[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 IMMUNOVANT INC: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 20 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Immunovant, Inc. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. Immunovant, Inc. (NASDAQ: IMVT) Class Period: October 2, 2019 - February 1, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 20, 2021 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) HSAC had performed inadequate due diligence into Legacy Immunovant prior to the Merger, and/or ignored or failed to disclose safety issues associated with IMVT-1401; (2) IMVT-1401 was less safe than the Company had led investors to believe, particularly with respect to treating TED and WAIHA; (3) the foregoing foreseeably diminished IMVT-1401's prospects for regulatory approval, commercial viability, and profitability; and (4) 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. To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] IMMUNOVANT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of April 20 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on March 1 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Immunovant, Inc. ("Immunovant" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: IMVT) 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 October 2, 2019 and February 1, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 20, 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. Health Sciences Acquisitions Corporation failed to perform proper due diligence into Immunovant Sciences Ltd. prior to the merger, and ignored or failed to disclose safety problems with IMVT-1401. IMVT-1401 was not as safe as the Company led the market to believe, particularly for the treatment of thyroid eye disease (TED) and warm autoimmune hemolytic anemia (WAIHA). These issues would greatly impact the likelihood of IMVT-1401 securing regulatory approval and commercial viability. 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 Immunovant, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com www.schallfirm.com [GN] INDIANA: Tully Files Certiorari Petition in Civil Rights Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Barbara Tully, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter styled Barbara Tully, et al., Petitioners vs. Paul Okeson, et al., Respondents, Case No. 20-1244. Response is due on April 8, 2021. Petitioners Tully, et al., petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh BARBARA TULLY, KATHARINE BLACK, MARC BLACK, DAVID CARTER, REBECCA GAINES, ELIZABETH KMIECIAK, CHAQUITTA MCCLEARY, DAVID SLIVKA, DOMINIC TUMMINELLO, and INDIANA VOTE BY MAIL, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. PAUL OKESON, S. ANTHONY LONG, SUZANNAH WILSON OVERHOLT, ZACHARY E. KLUTZ, and CONNIE LAWSON, in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-2605. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision denying Plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 21, 2020, the case is assigned to the Hon. Judge James Patrick Hanlon. The lawsuit alleges violation of civil rights-related laws. Relying on the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction requiring Indiana to permit unlimited absentee voting in the upcoming general election. To attain this goal, they challenge Indiana's absentee-voting regime on two grounds. First, Plaintiffs assert that Indiana's extension of absentee ballots to elderly Hoosiers violates the Twenty-Sixth Amendment by abridging younger Hoosiers' right to vote. Second, Plaintiffs contend that requiring some voters, such as themselves, to cast ballots in person during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic infringes on their fundamental right to vote and thus violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The Plaintiffs include nine Indiana voters who do not expect to qualify for an absentee ballot in the general election. Asserting claims under the Twenty-Sixth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, they moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Indiana to implement "no-excuse absentee voting" in the general election. On June 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction based on their federal constitutional claims. Pursuant to the briefing schedule set by the court, Defendants filed their Response in opposition on July 24, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on July 31. On August 21, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success. As to the Twenty-Sixth Amendment claim, the Court held that mail-in voting restrictions do not "absolutely prohibit" voters from casting a ballot and therefore that the Amendment's prohibition on the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of age was not implicated. As to the Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court similarly held that Defendants' refusal to permit all Indiana voters to vote by mail during the pandemic did not "absolutely prohibit" Plaintiffs from voting.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners Barbara Tully, et al., are represented by: Andrew John Pincus, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3220 E-mail: apincus@mayerbrown.com INFINITY Q: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of April 27 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 Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund. 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. Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund (NASDAQ: IQDAX, IQDNX) Class Period: December 21, 2018 to February 22, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 27, 2021 On February 22, 2021, Infinity Q filed a request with the SEC for an order pursuant to Section 22(e)(3) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 suspending the right of redemption with respect to shares of the Fund, effective February 19, 2021, because of Infinity Q's inability to determine Fund Pricing, or Net Asset Value ("NAV"). The request also stated that the Fund was liquidating its portfolio and distributing its assets to shareholders. The complaint, filed on February 26, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Infinity Q's Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a result, the prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Infinity Q class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/InfinityQ About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. 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] INFINITY Q: Howard G. Smith Reminds Investors of April 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming April 27, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the case filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund ("Infinity Q" or the "Company") Investor Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDAX) or Institutional Class shares (NASDAQ: IQDNX) between December 21, 2018 and February 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors suffering losses on their Infinity Q investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On February 23, 2021, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, "Investment Firm Halts Redemptions on $1.8 Billion Fund: Infinity Q Capital Management bans its chief investment officer from trading after discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings". The article reported that Infinity Q "asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to halt redemptions on one of its mutual funds and forbid its chief investment officer from trading after discovering issues valuing the fund's holdings." The article continued to state that, "[t]he fund was unable to calculate an NAV on February 19, 2021, and it is uncertain when the fund will be able to calculate an NAV that would enable it to satisfy requests for redemptions of fund shares[.]" 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) Infinity Q's Chief Investment Officer made adjustments to certain parameters within the third-party pricing model that affected the valuation of the swaps held by the Fund; (2) consequently, Infinity Q would not be able to calculate NAV correctly; (3) as a result, the previously reported NAVs were unreliable; (4) because of the foregoing, the Fund would halt redemptions and liquidate its assets; and (5) as a result, the prospectuses were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Infinity Q shares during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than April 27, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] INVESTORS ALLEY: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investors Alley Corp. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Investors Alley Corp., Case No. 1:21-cv-02146 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Investors Alley Corp. -- https://www.investorsalley.com/ -- is located in Los Angeles, California and is part of the Investment Firms Industry.[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 ITTELLA INTERNATIONAL: Quezada Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ittella International, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Quezada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ittella International, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02147 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ittella International, LLC -- https://tattooedchef.com/ -- is located in Paramount, California and is part of the Food Wholesalers Industry.[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 J.P. MORGAN: Roeder Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs David M. Roeder, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID M. ROEDER, SUSANNE A. ROEDER, RODNEY SICKMANN, DON COOKE, and MARK SCHAEFER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-2400, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 9, 2021, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted on February 26, 2021, Defendants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint against them. On Nov. 4, 1979, a group of armed Iranian militants scaled the wall of the American Embassy compound in Tehran, Iran, capturing the Embassy and taking 63 American citizens as hostages. Shortly thereafter, U.S. Charge d'affaires Bruce Laingen and two other Americans were seized at the Iranian Foreign ministry. For the next 444 days, 52 of the 66 Americans continued to be held as hostages. The hostage takers, who were supported by the provisional government of Iran, demanded that the United States turn over the Shah of Iran as the price for the release of the hostages. The Shah was then in the United States for medical treatment. The Americans remained hostage until Jan. 20, 1981. They were released on the date of Ronald Reagan's inauguration as President. Throughout their long captivity, the hostages were blindfolded, tortured, taunted, and threatened with death. The impact on family members was also horrific. The lawsuit seeks to recover from Chase for damages incurred as a result of the seizure of the hostages and their delayed release. The Plaintiffs include three former hostages: David M. Roeder, who was Assistant Air Force Attache when he was taken hostage; Rodney Sickmann, an enlisted Marine serving at the American Embassy in Tehran when he was taken hostage; and Don Cooke, a Consular Officer at the American Embassy in Tehran when he was taken hostage. They also include David M. Roeder's spouse, Susanne Roeder, and Mark Schaefer, son of hostage Colonel Thomas E. Schaefer, the American Defense and Air Attache at the American Embassy in Tehran when he was taken hostage. The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class of all Americans taken hostage from the American Embassy in Tehran or from the Iranian Foreign Ministry in 1979, including the hostages' estates and successors, the hostages' immediate family members at the time, and the estates and successors of those immediate family members. The Plaintiffs seek a review of the Court's Order entered February 26, 2021, dismissing the case. The appellate case is captioned as Roeder v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Case No. 21-552, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants David M. Roeder, Susanne A. Roeder, Rodney Sickmann, Don Cooke, and Mark Schaeffer, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, are represented by: Brent William Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 985-3273 E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com - and - Terrance Reed, Esq. LANKFORD & REED, PLLC 120 North Saint Asaph Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 299-5000 E-mail: tgreed@lrfirm.net Defendants-Appellees J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Corporation; and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Chase Manhattan Bank, are represented by: James E. Brandt, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 E-mail: james.brandt@lw.com JOHN HOGUE: ESOP Participants Win Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON GAMACHE, et al., v. JOHN F. HOGUE, JR., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00021-LAG (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leslie A. Gardner entered an order: a. certifying the following class: "Participants in the Technical Associates Employee Stock Ownership Program (ESOP) on or after the date stock was issued to Defendants Hogue and Thompson in connection with the 2011 Refinancing who vested under the terms of the Plan (or ERISA) and those participants beneficiaries;" Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their immediate families, any other fiduciary of the Plan and his or her immediate family the officers and directors of Technical Associates and their immediate family, and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons;" b. defining the class claims as those stated in the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, dated April 19, 2019; c. appointing the Plaintiffs Nelson Gamache and Edward Nofi as class representatives; d. appointing R. Joseph Barton of Block & Leviton LLP and Nina Wasow and Daniel Feinberg of Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP as co-lead class counsel; e. appointing Stone Law Group Trial Lawyers, LLC as liaison class counsel; and f. directing the Defendants to disclose to the Plaintiffs, within 14 days of this Order, the names, last known addresses, email addresses (to the extent known), dates of birth, and job titles of all potential class members employed by Defendants, in electronic, importable, and searchable format. The Court said, "Despite the Defendants' assertion that certification under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) is improper because "many individual questions between and among the putative class members exist," as stated above, individual differences among class members will not destroy class certification and the Plaintiffs in this case have not "rejected the gravamen of the class claims." In re BellSouth Corp. ERISA Litig., Case No. 1:02-CV-2440-JOF, 2005 WL 8154294, (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2005). The Plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the entire ESOP to correct and prevent the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Accordingly, class certification is also proper under Rule 23(b)(1)(B)." On January 29, 2019, the Plaintiffs Gamache and Nofi filed this putative class action pursuant to the ERISA. The Plaintiffs amended their Complaint on April 19, 2019. The Plaintiffs, former employees of the Technical Associates of Georgia., Inc. (TAG) and participants in the TAG ESOP, allege that the Defendants engaged in prohibited transactions and breached fiduciary duties in violation of 29 U.S.C. sections 1104(a)(1), 1105, 1106(a)(1)(D), and 1106(b). A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/38Abcxy at no extra charge.[CC] JOHN WETZEL: McMillen Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Inmates ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEENAN McMILLEN v. JOHN WETZEL, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00192-MPK (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of inmates in the state of Pennslyvania. The Plaintiff filed a section 1983 complaint challenging medical treatment deprivation that would no doubt affect an entire class of thousands of inmates in the state of pennslyvania. The Plaintiff appears pro se. A copy of the the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2NdxT2Z at no extra charge.[CC] JP MORGAN: Dennis Suit Seeks to Certify Class for Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD DENNIS, SONTERRA CAPITAL MASTER FUND, LTD., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, L.P., FRONTPOINT FINANCIAL HORIZONS FUND, L.P., and ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06496-LAK-GWG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying the Class for settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) subject to later, final approval of such Class for purposes of the Westpac and JPMorgan settlements; 2. conditionally appointing Lowey Dannenberg, P.C. and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP as Class Counsel for the Class with respect to the Westpac settlement; 3. approving the proposed plan of notice to the Class, including the form and substance of the proposed class notices; 4. setting a fairness hearing and certain related deadlines leading up to the fairness hearing, including deadlines to object to the proposed settlements and request exclusion from the Class; 5. granting leave to Representative Plaintiffs to develop a plan of distribution and proof of claim form for later approval by the Court prior to the deadlines for objections and requests for exclusion; 6. appointing A.B. Data as the Settlement Administrator for the Westpac settlement; 7. appointing Citibank, N.A. as Escrow Agent for purposes of the Settlement Fund for the Westpac settlement; and 8. staying all proceedings against Westpac and JPMorgan until the Court renders a decision on final approval of the proposed settlements. JPMorgan Chase is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York City. The Defendants include JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., BNP PARIBAS, S.A., THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC, THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, RBS N.V., RBS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED, UBS AG, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD., COMMONWEALTH BANK OF AUSTRALIA, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC, HSBC BANK AUSTRALIA LIMITED, LLOYDS BANKING GROUP PLC, LLOYDS BANK PLC, MACQUARIE GROUP LTD., MACQUARIE BANK LTD., ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY AUSTRALIA LIMITED, CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG, CREDIT SUISSE AG, ICAP PLC, ICAP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD., TULLETT PREBON PLC, TULLETT PREBON (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD., AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-50. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tiY9rZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: The Counsel for the Representative Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class, are: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com ghorn@lowey.com - and - Christopher McGrath, Esq. Christopher Lovell, Esq. LOVELL STEWART HALEBIAN JACOBSON LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2440 New York, NY 10110 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com cmcgrath@lshllp.com Additional Counsel for the Orange County Employees Retirement System, are: Todd Seaver, Esq. Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-320 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com - and - Patrick T. Egan, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com LEGEND NUMISMATIC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. LEGEND NUMISMATIC AUCTIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND LEGEND RARE COIN AUCTIONS, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-02063-JMF (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2021), is brought against the Defendant for its failure 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 people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical location, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendants' Website https://www.legendnumismatics.com/, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Defendants operate the Legend online retail store as well as the Legend website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Leidos Holdings, Inc. 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. Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) Class Period: May 4, 2020 to February 23, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management LLC ("Spruce Point") published a research report, alleging, among other things that "Leidos is potentially covering up at least $100m of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355 - $367m of international revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was "concealing numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and borders." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.58, or 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021. On February 23, 2021, Leidos announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported $89 million revenue related to the SD&A businesses for the fourth quarter, meaning that after two full quarters, the acquisition generated only $163 million in sales (or $326 million annualized), falling well short of projected $500 million sales. The Company expected cash flow of $850 million, well below analyst estimates of $1.083 billion. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021. On February 24, 2021, Spruce Point highlighted that Leidos had "materially expanded" the risk disclosures in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020. Spruce Point tweeted: "We believe it is validating all the major points of our report." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos' products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Leidos class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/LDOS About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Leidos Holdings, Inc. ("Leidos" or the "Company") (NYSE: LDOS) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased Leidos securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. Leidos is a science, engineering, and information technology company that provides services and solutions in the defense, intelligence, homeland security, civil and health markets, both domestically and internationally. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of L3Harris Technologies's Security Detection & Automation ("SD&A") businesses were significantly overstated; (2) that Leidos's products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly overstated. Throughout the Class Period the Company touted its revenue, sales figures, and the state of its internal control over financial reporting. On February 16, 2021, Spruce Point published a report, alleging, among other things that "Leidos was potentially covering up at least $100 [million] of fictitious sales, mischaracterizing $355-$367 [million] of revenue." The report also alleged that the Company was concealing "numerous product defects from investors, notably faulty explosive detection systems at airports and borders." On this news, the price of Leidos's common stock fell $2.58, or almost 2.4%, to close at $105.22 per share on February 16, 2021. On February 23, 2021, the Company reporting on its SD&A business stated that it fell $163 million short of its projected sales goal of $500 million. On this news, the price of Leidos's stock fell by $10.29, or 9.91%, to close at $93.51 per share on February 23, 2021. On February 23 and 24, 2021, Spruce Point tweeted, highlighting materially expansions the Company had made to its risk disclosure statement in its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2020. On this news, the price of Leidos's stock fell by $3.13, or 3.3%, to close at $90.38 per share on February 24, 2021. What You Can Do If you purchased Leidos securities between May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is May 3, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. CONTACT: Joe Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] LIBERTY OILFIELD: Cobb and Joseph IPO Class Suits Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend against putative class action suits initiated by Marshall Cobb and Marc Joseph. On March 11, 2020, Marshall Cobb, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the state District Court of Denver County, Colorado against the Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along with other defendants in connection with the initial public offering (IPO). The Cobb Complaint alleges that the Company and certain officers and board members of the Company violated Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the registration statement filed in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and costs. The Cobb Plaintiffs also allege control person liability claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain officers and board members of the Company and other defendants. On April 3, 2020, Marc Joseph, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in Denver, Colorado against the Company and certain officers and board members of the Company along with other defendants in connection with the IPO and requests unspecified damages and costs. The Joseph Complaint, which is based on similar factual allegations made in the Cobb Complaint, alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of inaccurate or misleading statements allegedly contained in the registration statement and prospectus filed in connection with the IPO. The Joseph Complaint also alleges control person liability claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against certain officers and board members of the Company and other defendants. The Company has hired counsel and plans to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Securities Lawsuits. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Liberty Oilfield Services Inc. is an independent provider of hydraulic fracturing services and goods to onshore oil and natural gas exploration and production ("E&P") companies in North America. The company had grown from one hydraulic fracturing fleet in December 2011 to 24 fleets in the first quarter of 2020, including the addition of one fleet in January 2020. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. LION AIR: Girardi Allegedly Failed to Disburse Settlement Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Robson, writing for Law.com, reports that nearly a quarter of the way through 2021, and it does not look like things will slow down much compared with last year. One of the big storylines heading into 2021 was the bankruptcy of Girardi Keese, a giant within the plaintiffs bar, and allegations that firm founder Tom Girardi failed to disburse settlement funds to members of the Lion Air crash litigation. The allegations, and the firm's subsequent bankruptcy, have some lawyers calling for more judicial oversight of certain types of mass tort settlements. A key issue discussed in our cover story by Amanda Bronstad is that judges currently have no power to review settlements in mass tort cases, unlike in class action litigation. One potential sticking point, though, is some people are not sure reforms would have helped with the Lion Air settlement given how much control Girardi exercised over his firm. [GN] LOWRY FARMS: 30 Days Extension to Respond to Class Cert. Bid Sought ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BERNABE' ANTONIO BENITO AND JESUS JIMENEZ MARTINEZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. LOWRY FARMS, INC. AND MICHAEL CLAYTON LOWRY AKA CLAY LOWRY, Case No. 1:20-cv-01039-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an additional 30 days to respond to the Motion for Certification of Rule 23 Class Action, and for any and all other relief which this Court deems just and proper. The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Certification of Rule 23 Class Action on February 2. The Defendants' response to such motion is due on March 3, 2021. Due to the trial schedule, workload and amount of work required to respond to such filing, the defendants' counsel requests an additional 30 days to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion. Lowry Farms is a major farm labor contractor based in Arkansas. A copy of the Defendants' motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eAPM7k at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: F. Mattison Thomas, III, Esq. THOMAS LAW FIRM 103 East Main Street, Suite D El Dorado, AR 71730 Telephone: (870) 881-8468 LUXEMBOURG: Business Lobby Group Says Class Action Law Too Broad ---------------------------------------------------------------- delano.lu reports that Luxembourg's chamber of commerce has heavily criticised a bill of law that would enable consumers to launch class actions. The bill, which is a transposition of an EU directive, offers consumers who have been wronged by a company or business the chance to launch class action law suits in Luxembourg. The bill also permit both parties to reach an out-of-court settlement. Its main goal is to simplify access to justice for consumers and avoid a clogging up of courts. In a public statement published, the business lobby group said that while it did not oppose consumer protection, the scope of the bill was too broad. The bill "consists in ultimately encompassing any dispute between a consumer and a professional," and the professional chamber recommends limiting the scope of the bill to breaches of the provisions of the Consumer Code "or at the very least adopting a restrictive list of the provisions for which a breach on the part of the professional may give rise to the introduction of a class action." The professional chamber also takes issue with the principle of introducing moral and bodily injuries, which it says are "inherently unsuitable for the class action mechanism [. . . . ] in particular because of the lengthening and increased complexity of the procedures this would entail." Finally, it opposes the public naming of the defendant when a judge deems a class action is eligible, which is the first stage of the procedure. "No publication should be ordered before the very principle of the professional's liability has been established by a final court decision, in order to preserve the reputation of the professionals concerned by such an action," it wrote. [GN] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Johnson Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the complaint in the class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson is pending. In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing specific PFCs, including the Company. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied. In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus directing each lower court to enter an order granting the defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20, 2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to reconsider its December 2019 decision. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the application for rehearing. On August 21, 2020, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for review of the matter. On January 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for review. In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs. Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their drinking water. In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to federal court. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in both of these cases. On December 17, 2020, the Superior Court of Floyd County denied the Company's motion to dismiss in the Rome case. The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to defend them vigorously. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Bid to Nix Shareholder Suit in Georgia Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed in the putative shareholder class action suit is pending. On January 3, 2020, the Company and certain of its executive officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019. On June 29, 2020, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities Class Action against Mohawk and its CEO Jeff Lorberbaum, based on the same claims and the same Class Period. The amended complaint alleges that the Company (1) engaged in fabricating revenues by attempting delivery to customers that were closed and recognizing these attempts as sales; (2) overproduced product to report higher operating margins and maintained significant inventory that was not salable; and (3) valued certain inventory improperly or improperly delivered inventory with knowledge that it was defective and customers would return it. On October 27, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Delaware Securities Suit Still Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit filed before the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, remains stayed. The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2020. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019. On March 27, 2020, the Court granted a temporary stay of the litigation pending the earlier of either the close of fact discovery or the deadline to appeal the dismissal of the related Securities Class Action pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The stay may be lifted according to the terms set forth in the Court's Order to Stay Litigation. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. MULTIPLAN CORPORATION: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of April 26 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders of MultiPlan Corporation. Investors have until the deadline listed below to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their investments are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz to discuss their legal rights in the class action at 310-914-5007 or by email to fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com. MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III (NYSE: MPLN) Class Period: July 12, 2020 - November 10, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: April 26, 2021 The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of MultiPlan's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (2) that sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition, as payors developed competing services and sought alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (3) that MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced billing practices, causing MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to half in some cases; (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of the healthcare technology company HST for $140 million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive only one month after the Merger; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far less than represented to investors. To be a member of the class action, you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about the class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. [GN] NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Henry Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs Kevin Henry, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled KEVIN HENRY and NAJEH DAVENPORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE and NFL PROPERTIES, LLC, successor-in-interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Case No. 2-20-cv-04165, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought on behalf of former Black football players alleging deprivation of equal rights under the law. According to the complaint, the Defendants have been avoiding paying head-injury claims under the settlement agreement in the National Football League: Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, Case No. 2:12-md-02323-AB, by manipulating the evaluation for the qualifying diagnoses of neurocognitive impairment through a statistical manipulation approach called "race-norming", which discriminates against former Black football players. When being evaluated for the qualifying diagnoses, former Black players are automatically assumed to have started with worse cognitive functioning than former White players. As a result, if a retired Black player and a retired White player receive the exact same raw scores on a battery of tests designed to measure their current cognitive functioning, the Black player is presumed to have suffered less impairment, and he is, therefore, less likely to qualify for compensation. As a result of the Defendants' actions, it is far more difficult for Black retirees, including the Plaintiffs, to receive benefits for the brain injuries, which are a routine result of playing professional football, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated March 8, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The appellate case is captioned as Kevin Henry, et al. v. NFL, et al., Case No. 21-1434, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, March 9, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants KEVIN HENRY and NAJEH DAVENPORT, On Behalf of themselves and all Others Similarly Situated, are represented by: Aitan D. Goelman, Esq. Steven N. Herman, Esq. Ezra B. Marcus, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 1800 M Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 E-mail: agoelman@zuckerman.com sherman@zuckerman.com emarcus@zuckerman.com - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com - and - Edward S. Stone, Esq. 300 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (203) 504-8425 E-mail: eddie@edwardstonelaw.com - and - Justin R. Wyatt, Esq. 49 West 37th Street New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (215) 557-2776 E-mail: justin@jrwyattlaw.com Defendant-Appellee NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE is represented by: Logan Anderson, Esq. Sean P. Fahey, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 3000 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4474 E-mail: logan.anderson@troutman.com sean.fahey@troutman.com - and - Lynn B. Bayard, Esq. Bruce A. Birenboim, Esq. Claudia Hammerman, Esq. Brad S. Karp, Esq. PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: lbayard@paulweiss.com bbirenboim@paulweiss.com chammerman@paulweiss.com bkarp@paulweiss.com NEW SOUTH WALES: To Ban Firefighting Foams Following Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Carrie Fellner, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that the state government will ban firefighting foams containing PFAS chemicals, bringing NSW into line with Queensland and South Australia where foams containing the dangerous toxins are already outlawed. The Herald can reveal the ban will be announced on Monday by NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean and will prohibit the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS for training or demonstration purposes from March. Foams containing the per- and poly-fluoroalkyl chemicals will still be able to be used in catastrophic or special circumstances. "This ban on PFAS firefighting foam will significantly reduce the impact on our environment but still enable our emergency agencies to fight catastrophic fires that can have devastating impacts on life and property," Mr Kean said. PFAS chemicals do not break down in the environment and have been linked to a slew of health effects by overseas governments, including cancer, immune system suppression and hormone disruption. Australia remains one of the only countries in the world not to have introduced a ban at a federal level by ratifying a United Nations treaty. Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, from the National Toxics Network, said the organisation welcomed the decision but believed there was no place for PFAS in firefighting foams at all, given the alternatives available. "This decision by NSW can be considered well overdue as, in May 2019, more than 180 countries agreed to ban the use of firefighting foams containing PFOA or PFOS in training exercises. "Even the chemical industry lobby group, the FluoroCouncil, argued that they should never be used in a training exercise." Dr Lloyd-Smith added they would be looking at the details of the announcement with interest. "There are thousands of PFAS chemicals and it will be important to know how many PFAS will the NSW ban cover and how they will monitor the ban," she said. PFAS chemicals have contaminated the blood of most of the global population due to their past use in popular consumer products including cosmetics, food packaging, textiles, Teflon frying pans and the fabric protector Scotchguard. Their main use in Australia today is in firefighting foams to smother liquid fuel fires, along with in X-rays and chromium plating. Government agencies, including Fire and Rescue NSW and the Department of Defence, have voluntarily abandoned use of the toxic foams but used them for decades during training exercises. It is believed private industry continues to use stocks of the PFAS firefighting foams. Mr Kean said the changes followed extensive consultation with emergency agencies and will be introduced in stages over the next 19 months to allow adequate time for systems and practices to be changed. Even with the phase-out, PFAS will continue to be an ever-present threat in dozens of communities across Australia where the toxic foams have been used, lingering in waterways, on land and in the food chain. Last year the federal government paid out a $212 million settlement after class actions were launched by communities polluted by the Department of Defence in Williamtown in NSW, Katherine in the Northern Territory and Oakey in Queensland. Further lawsuits are either afoot or being investigated at an additional 24 military bases across the country. The president of the Coalition against PFAS, Lindsay Clout, who was involved in the class action at Williamtown, welcomed news of the ban in NSW. "It's a commendable step in the right direction," he said. "It's an admission that the product is dangerous and confirmation for all the people that have fought so long and hard to have the dangers of PFAS chemicals exposed." Investigations by the Sydney Morning Herald and Newcastle Herald have uncovered clusters of cancer cases in communities that have been heavily exposed to PFAS. Fifty cases of cancer were uncovered on a heavily polluted road in Williamtown, while a further 21 cases were found at a high school in Minnesota in the United States' mid-west where students drank polluted water. The investigations also revealed that one of the main global manufacturers of the chemicals, 3M company, has been accused of secretly working over decades to "command the science" and deceive the public about the dangers of PFAS. Last year in a landmark finding, the Federal Court's independent expert umpire ruled there is "good evidence" that PFAS potentially causes harmful effects, including cancer. The Queensland Government was the first ban the use of PFAS firefighting foams in 2016 and it was followed by South Australia in 2018. [GN] NEXTEP INC: Loomis Sues Board for Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Loomis, Jason Boyer and Daniel W. Kilday, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NEXTEP, INC., THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NEXTEP, INC., THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF NEXTEP, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 5:21-cv-00199-HE (D.W. Okla., March 10, 2021), is brought on behalf of the Nextep 401(k) Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Plan's fiduciaries, which include Nextep, Inc. and the Board of Directors of Nextep, Inc. and its members during the Class Period and the Investment Committee of Nextep, Inc. and its members during the Class Period for breaches of their fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period the Defendants, as "fiduciaries" of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the duties they owed to the Plan, to the Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter alia, (1) failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost; and (2) maintaining certain funds in the Plan despite the availability of identical or similar investment options with lower costs and/or better performance histories; and (3) failing to control the Plan's administrative and recordkeeping costs. It appears that in 2020, five years into the Class Period, some changes were made to the Plan wherein certain Plan investment options, some of which are the subject of this lawsuit, were either converted to lower class shares or eliminated unnecessary fees. These changes were far too little and too late as the damages suffered by Plan participants to that point had already been baked in. There is no reason to not have implemented these changes by the start of the Class Period when the majority of lower-class shares were available. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of the ERISA, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs participated in the Plan investing in the options offered by the Plan. Nextep is the Plan sponsor and a named fiduciary with a principal place of business in Norman, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald R. Reavey, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 2933 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Phone: (717) 233-4101 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: donr@capozziadler.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Phone: (610) 890-0200 Fax (717) 233-4103 Email: markg@capozziadler.com NEXTIER OILFIELD: Continues to Defend C&J Merger-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to its merger with C&J Energy Services, Inc. On June 16, 2019, the Company entered into an agreement and plan of merger among the Company, C&J Energy Services, Inc. and King Merger Sub Corp. In connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby the following complaints were filed: (i) one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado by a purported C&J stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J and members of the C&J board of directors, (ii) two putative class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by a purported C&J stockholder on behalf of himself and all other C&J stockholders (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against C&J, members of the C&J board of directors, the Company and Merger Sub, (iii) one putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas by a purported stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against the Company and members of its board of directors, and (iv) one putative class action was filed in the Delaware Chancery Court by a purported stockholder of the Company on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company (excluding defendants and related or affiliated persons) against members of the Company's board of directors. The five stockholder actions are captioned as follows: Palumbos v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-02386 (D. Colo.), Wuollet v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01411 (D. Del.), Plumley v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01446 (D. Del.), Bushansky v. Keane Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:19-cb-02924 (S.D. Tex) and Woods v. Keane Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2019-0590 (Del. Chan.). In general, the Stockholder Actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, or aided and abetted in such alleged violations, because the Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC on July 16, 2019 in connection with the proposed C&J Merger allegedly omitted or misstated material information. The Stockholder Actions seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing the consummation of the C&J Merger, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. C&J, the Company and the other named defendants believe that no supplemental disclosures were required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Actions delaying the C&J Merger and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Actions, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, C&J and the Company filed a Form 8-K on October 11, 2019 making certain supplemental disclosures in connection with the C&J Merger. Following those supplemental disclosures, plaintiffs in the Woods and Bushansky actions voluntarily dismissed their claims as moot on October 16, 2019 and October 29, 2019, respectively. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 to plaintiff's counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses in full satisfaction of the claim for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Woods action, and the remaining cases were settled and dismissed as well. No shareholder litigation is currently pending arising out of the C&J Merger. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Nextier Oilfield Solutions Inc. provides oilfield services. The Company offers drilling and other related solutions such as developing, delivering, management, and engineering activities. Nextier Oilfield Solutions serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Houston, Texas. ONTRAK INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Ontrak, Inc. 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. Ontrak, Inc. (NASDAQ: OTRK) Class Period: November 5, 2020 to February 26, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 On March 1, 2021, Ontrak issued a press release announcing preliminary financial results for fourth quarter and full year 2020. Therein, the Company stated that its largest customer had terminated its contract with Ontrak, effective June 26, 2021. The Company stated that this customer "evaluated Ontrak on a provider basis" and "[a]s such, the customer evaluated [Ontrak's] performance based on [its] ability to achieve the lowest possible cost per medical visit, and not on [its] clinical outcomes data or medical cost savings." The Company also stated that "the coaching model which Ontrak has pioneered for over a decade was seen by the customer to be less relevant to their performance metrics." On this news, the Company's share price fell $27.32, or more than 46%, to close at $31.62 per share on March 1, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 3, 2021, 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 Ontrak's largest customer evaluated the Company on a provider basis, valuing Ontrak's performance based on achieving the lowest cost per medical visit rather than clinical outcomes or medical cost savings; (2) that, as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find the Company's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (3) that, because this customer accounted for a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Ontrak class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/OTRK About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] PACIFICORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Negligence in Beachie Creek Fire ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Samayoa at opb.org reports that the Beachie Creek Fire was one of the most catastrophic wildfires in Oregon's history, burning more than 193,000 acres east of Salem. A pair of lawsuits were filed against one of the Northwest's biggest private utilities, alleging the company was negligent and failed to properly maintain power lines during last year's devastating Labor Day wildfires. The two mass action cases were filed against PacifiCorp by Edelson PC and Johnson Johnson Lucas & Middleton, on behalf of 100 Beachie Creek Fire victims. The lawsuits claim PacifiCorp failed to safely design, operate and maintain infrastructure. They also claim the utility failed to pay attention to warnings by the National Weather Service about the historically powerful east winds, which contributed to the spread and ignitions of Oregon wildfires, including the Beachie Creek Fire. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 billion. "The vast majority, if not all of the individuals that have been named in this suit, lost homes, or had property severely damaged or lost businesses," Edelson PC Partner Chris Dore said. The Beachie Creek Fire was one of the most catastrophic wildfires in Oregon's history, burning more than 193,000 acres east of Salem. Dore said grouping the lawsuits together while still representing each individual, gives wildfire survivors a better chance to be fairly compensated. Edelson PC has represented more than 1,000 individuals over the past couple of years from northern California's 2018 deadly Camp Fire. The law firm helped secure and reach a resolution of a settlement amount of $13.5 billion against Pacific Gas and Electric company. The fire claimed 85 lives. Dore said this lawsuit has many similarities between the lawsuit against Pacific Gas and Electric in which the utility knew what type of weather was coming, what the dangers were and possible solutions. "The defendant here had the benefit of seeing what that tragedy at the Camp Fire looked like and learning from it," he said. "In fact there are documents that they put together for themselves about what happened there and how to prevent it." The 100 individuals are only a portion of the people Edelson PC represents in Oregon. The law firm plans to file more lawsuits soon. PacifiCorp faces at least one other class action lawsuit from three Pacific Northwest law firms. The suit claims the utility failed to properly maintain powerlines that caused the Labor Day wildfires. A spokesperson for PacifiCorp declined to comment, citing company policy regarding pending litigation. [GN] PANERA BREAD: Ahmad Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Mahasin Ahmad, inidividually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panera Bread Company, Case No. 21SL-CC00593 was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on March 11, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00311-CDP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Panera Bread Company -- https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/home.html -- is an American chain store of bakery-cafe fast casual restaurants with over 2,000 locations, all of which are in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL 308 Hutchinson Road Ellisville, MO 63011 Phone: (314) 541-0317 Fax: (855) 710-7706 Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. Kimberly M. Bousquet, Esq. THOMPSON COBURN LLP - St Louis One US Bank Plaza 505 N. 7th Street, Suite 2700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 552-6159 Fax: (314) 552-7000 Email: chohn@thompsoncoburn.com kbousquet@thompsoncoburn.com RANGE RESOURCES: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Resources Corporation. Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can be found at the link provided. Range Resources Corporation (NYSE: RRC) Class Period: April 29, 2016 to February 10, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 Range Resources operates as an independent natural gas, natural gas liquids ("NGLs"), and oil company in the U.S. The Company and its subsidiary, Range Resources - Appalachia, LLC, engage in the exploration, development, and acquisition of natural gas and oil properties in, among other U.S. regions, Fayette County, Pennsylvania. As of December 31, 2019, the Company purportedly owned and operated 1,272 net producing wells in the Appalachian region, including Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection (the "DEP") enforces the regulations governing the correct designation of a well's status. On February 10, 2021, the DEP issued a press release announcing that Range Resources had paid a $294,000 civil penalty to the agency on January 8, 2021 for violating the 2012 Oil and Gas Act. The DEP had begun investigating the Company after the agency found conflicting and inaccurate information on the status of a Company well in Fayette County, Pennsylvania-specifically concerning whether the well in question was correctly designated as inactive for the purposes of DEP regulation. After subpoenaing Range Resources for information on other wells the Company had requested to designate as inactive, the DEP found that "between, July 16, 2013, and October 11, 2017, 42 of Range Resources' conventional wells were placed on inactive status but were never used again" and that several of the Company's "wells had not been in use for 12 months at the time Range Resources submitted its applications for inactive status," even though "after 12 consecutive months of no production, the well would be classified as abandoned and must be plugged." In addition to paying the DEP's civil penalty, Range Resources was ultimately required to plug the wells the agency identified as having no viable future use to remediate the issue. The following day, Range Resources' stock price fell $0.62 per share, or 6.08%, from its closing price on February 10, 2021, to close at $9.57 per share on February 11, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 4, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Range Resources had improperly designated the status of its wells in Pennsylvania since at least 2013; (ii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to a heightened risk of regulatory investigation and enforcement, as well as artificially decreased the Company's periodically reported cost estimates to plug and abandon its wells; (iii) the Company was the subject of a DEP investigation from sometime between September 2017 to January 2021 for improperly designating the status of its wells; (iv) the DEP investigation foreseeably would and ultimately did lead to the Company incurring regulatory fines; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Range Resources class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/RRC About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] RENEWABLE ENERGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Renewable Energy Group, Inc. 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. Renewable Energy Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: REGI) Class Period: May 3, 2018 to February 25, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 On February 25, 2021, Renewable Energy issued a press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, the Company revealed that it would restate "$38.2 million in cumulative revenue from January 2018 through September 30, 2020" because Renewable Energy was not the "proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020." Renewable Energy further stated that it had reached an agreement with the Internal Revenue Service "on a $40.5 million assessment, excluding interest" to correct these claims. On this news, the Company's share price fell $8.17, or 9.5%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $77.77 per share on February 26, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that due to failures in the diesel additive system, petroleum diesel was not periodically added to certain loads by the Company and was instead added by the Company's customers; (2) that, as a result, Renewable Energy was not the proper claimant for certain BTC payments on biodiesel it sold between January 1, 2017 and September 30, 2020; (3) that, as a result, Renewable Energy's revenue and net income were overstated for certain periods; (4) that there was a material weakness in the Company's internal control over financial reporting related to the purchase and use of the petroleum diesel gallons when blending with biodiesel; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Renewable Energy Group class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/REGI About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Regulator Inquiries Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- AFP reports that stock trading app Robinhood has confirmed it is cooperating with inquiries from United States regulators into its decision to temporarily throttle purchases of shares in companies like GameStop during frenzied trading in January. The free brokerage platform is facing inquiries from federal financial regulators, state attorneys general and the US Congress, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Robinhood, which says it is "cooperating" with the entities, is already facing dozens of class action lawsuits. The lawsuits "generally allege breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and other common law claims," Robinhood said in the filing on Feb. 26. "We believe that the claims in these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend against them vigorously." Key players in the GameStop shares trading frenzy told skeptical US lawmakers that their actions were above board and in line with ordinary stock market business. Founders of Robinhood and the online forum Reddit were among those to testify at a House of Representatives financial services committee hearing. Unprecedented recent volatility -- with shares in the GameStop video game store surging more than 400 percent -- prompted calls for regulators to review the role of social media, hedge funds and trading platforms which some allege manipulated the market. The GameStop Wall Street upheaval was sparked via a "subreddit" known as WallStreetBets. [GN] SA POWER NETWORK: Victims Launch $150MM Legal Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- abc.net.au reports that a class action lawsuit seeking $150 million for victims of the 2019 Cudlee Creek bushfire in the Adelaide Hills has been lodged with the South Australian Supreme Court. Maddens Lawyers is seeking compensation for up to 1,000 victims of the blaze, which destroyed more than 90 homes and killed one person in December 2019. It claims SA Power Networks' inadequate fault protection settings led to the bushfire, which started when a tree fell on power lines and then a fence. Brendan Pendergast the Victorian law firm Maddens Lawyers said South Australia's energy distributor knew it was a catastrophic fire danger day, with a total fire ban in place. "And yet we see in the Office of the Technical Regulator's report that the fault mechanisms were adjusted to normal settings and quite alarmingly the auto-reclose device operated twice so it de-energised the line and then re-energised it after the tree fell on the line and brought it down to the ground," he said. In its report on the fire released in August, the Office of the Technical Regulator said it "could not identify any indicators that could have enabled a reasonable person to identify this tree failure prior to the event". Mr Pendergast said he would present experts who said the tree was already "severely compromised" three years before the fire and should have been identified as "dead, dying or dangerous". Range of Losses From Bushfire He said losses went beyond the destroyed homes and 1,000 hectares in damaged vineyards. "One person tragically lost their life, more than 50 firefighters were injured and many of the citizens living up there had suffered psychological or psychiatric injury as a result of the trauma of the bushfire experience," he said. "So we're seeking to recover compensation for those aspects of the fire as well." An SA Power Networks spokesman said the company had not yet seen "the detail of the claim" but would defend its actions. "An independent government report concluded the fire start was due to a tree falling from outside the vegetation clearance zone surrounding power lines, and that SAPN had acted in accord with its bushfire and vegetation management procedures and equipment settings," he said. SA Power Networks is controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing. Maddens Lawyers is also representing victims of the November 2019 Yorketown bushfire, which was caused by a power network fault. That case is heading to court-ordered mediation next month. "We're optimistic that proper resolution can be achieved at that time rather than taking the matter before the court for a determination," Mr Pendergast said. Mr Pendergast's firm has been involved in a number of lawsuits relating to bushfires, starting with the Ash Wednesday fire that struck the Adelaide Hills and parts of Victoria in 1983. [GN] SANTANDER CONSUMER: Deka Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Court in Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K, entered a Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Company is a defendant in a purported securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, captioned Deka Investment GmbH et al. v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. et al., No. 3:15-cv-2129-K. The Deka Lawsuit, which was filed in August 2014, was brought against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and certain institutions that served as underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (IPO) on behalf of a class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 23, 2014 and June 12, 2014. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's IPO registration statement and prospectus and certain subsequent public disclosures violated federal securities laws by containing misleading statements concerning the Company's ability to pay dividends and the adequacy of the Company's compliance systems and oversight. In December 2015, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which was denied. In December 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the proposed classes. In July 2017, the court entered an order staying the Deka Lawsuit pending the resolution of the appeal of a class certification order in In re Cobalt Int'l Energy, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. H-14-3428, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91938 (S.D. Tex. June 15, 2017). In October 2018, the court vacated the order staying the Deka Lawsuit and ordered that merits discovery in the Deka Lawsuit be stayed until the court ruled on the issue of class certification. On July 28, 2020, the Company executed a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the Deka Lawsuit that fully resolves all of the plaintiffs' claims for a cash payment of $47 million. On August 13, 2020, the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving the Settlement and Providing For Notice, setting the Final Settlement Hearing and on January 12, 2021, the Court entered a Final Judgement and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc., a specialized consumer finance company, provides vehicle finance and third-party servicing in the United States. Its products and services include retail installment contracts and vehicle leases, as well as dealer loans for inventory, construction, real estate, working capital, and revolving lines of credit. The company was founded in 1995 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Santander Holdings USA, Inc. Saskatchewan: Move to Delay Humboldt Bus Crash Suit Challenged -------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Graveland, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Battlefords NOW reports that a battle between lawsuits related to the Humboldt Broncos bus crash was to be heard in a Regina courtroom last month. Eleven lawsuits were filed after the crash on April 6, 2018. Sixteen people died and 13 were injured when the driver of a semi-truck blew a stop sign and drove into the path of the junior hockey team's bus near Tisdale, Sask. Lawyers for a proposed class action waiting for certification plan to ask a judge Friday to delay another lawsuit filed by five of the victims families until that's done. The possible delay has some of the families frustrated. "We want to put certain pieces of this behind us. When they get dragged out longer and longer, it just makes it harder and harder. It causes more pain," said Chris Joseph, a former NHL player from St. Albert, Alta. His 20-year-old son, Jaxon, died in the crash. The proposed class action so far includes the families of 24-year-old Dayna Brons, the team's athletic therapist from Lake, Lenore, Sask., who died in hospital after the crash, and injured goalie Jacob Wassermann, 21, from Humboldt, Sask. The suit names the Saskatchewan government, the inexperienced truck driver who caused the crash and the Calgary-based company that employed him. Vancouver lawyer John Rice said the request for a stay, or delay, is about fairness. "In situations where numerous claimants are harmed from the same event -- and where the legal findings in one proceeding could impact all the others -- the court needs to strike a balance between the competing interests of individual litigants to ensure that the most efficient and just process is adopted," Rice said. "In these awful circumstances, in this application, the court is being asked to exercise the 'least-worst' option, which is to press pause on the progress of one action until the application for certification is heard." Kevin Mellor of Regina, lawyer for the other lawsuit, said a delay would put his clients' claim at risk. He represents the Joseph family as well as the families of Adam Herold, 16, of Monmartre, Sask.; Logan Hunter, 18, of St. Albert, Alta.; Jacob Leicht, 19, of Humboldt, Sask.; and assistant coach Mark Cross, 27, from Strasbourg, Sask. They all died from the crash. That lawsuit, in addition to naming the Saskatchewan government, the driver and his employer, also lists the bus company as a defendant. Mellor said Jaskirat Singh Sidhu was sentenced to eight years in prison for causing the crash, but could be deported to India before their lawsuit gets to trial. "If the class action is going to delay . . . they're going to miss out on material evidence because this guy will be deported," Mellor said. "We need to giddy-up and go." Co-counsel, Sharon Fox, said their clients shouldn't be punished because they were first to file a lawsuit. "We filed our claim in July 2018, three months after the crash happened," Fox said. "We have been at this for almost two years . . . They're trying to hold us back, put us on the sidelines, so they can catch up. We're saying that's not fair and that's going to impact our client's ability to prove our case." Their clients also don't want to put their healing on hold any longer, she said. An affidavit from Herold's father, Russ Herold, was filed in advance of Friday's hearing. "I feel I will suffer psychological harm if my lawsuit is delayed," he says in the document. "I want to advance my lawsuit to hold responsible those that should be held responsible for my son's death." Lawyers for the Saskatchewan government recently argued in court that, because of the province's no-fault insurance, it should be struck as a defendant from the class action. A judge has not yet ruled on that application. This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 1, 2021. [GN] SASKATCHEWAN: Proposed Class Action Filed in Over COVID-19 ---------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Taylor at The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit has been filed in Saskatchewan against a long-term care operator alleging it lacked proper resources to handle COVID-19. Documents filed at Regina's Court of Queen's Bench say the novel coronavirus spread through different Extendicare locations last fall. One of those was Extendicare Parkside in Regina, where a statement of claim says at least 41 residents have died of COVID-19. The claim from Merchant Law Group says reports by the Saskatchewan Health Authority and internal audits had warned of pre-existing issues, including a lack of single rooms. "For residents who survived the Extendicare COVID-19 outbreaks, they endured, and continue to endure harsh and intolerable treatment at Extendicare Saskatchewan locations," it reads. "They were locked down in their rooms, feared for their safety and lives, knew other residents were dying around them and were unable to have visits with their loved ones and family members." The suit also alleges that Extendicare didn't have proper infection controls in place. It is seeking damages for loss of life, funeral expenses, emotional distress on family members and residents, as well as medical treatment for long-term COVID-19 effects. None of the allegations have been proven in court. "Our focus at this time is solely on providing quality care to our residents, and supporting our families and team members," said an emailed statement from Extendicare. "We share in the sadness of our community over the devastating toll COVID-19 has taken on Extendicare Parkside and other long-term care homes across the country." "We'll respond to the allegations through the appropriate legal channels in due course." One of the plaintiffs listed in the suit, Marie Albert, was a short-term resident at Parkside who contracted COVID-19 and now has to be on oxygen and has limited mobility. "She survived but with devastating impacts on her enjoyment of life," the claim reads. The suit says Albert had been in a four-bed room until recently. When two residents moved, she was placed n a two-person room. Extendicare Inc. and Extendicare Canada own or lease five long-term care homes and four long-term retirement communities in Saskatchewan, says the claim. Other proposed class actions have been filed in Canadian courts against care homes that have had COVID-19 outbreaks, including a claim in Ontario against Extendicare. [GN] SEQWATER: Wivenhoe, Somerset Class Action Partially Settled ----------------------------------------------------------- InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the Wivenhoe and Somerset class action has been partially settled for $440 million after a compensation agreement was reached with the Queensland Government and its statutory body, SunWater, law firm Maurice Blackburn announced. The settlement comes more than a year after the NSW Supreme Court ruled in November 2019 that negligence by operators of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams exacerbated the 2011 Brisbane floods. Maurice Backburn filed the class action in 2014, alleging negligence on the part of Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority (which trades as Seqwater), Sunwater and the State of Queensland contributed to the extensive flooding disaster. The class action, which includes a number of insurers, claimed the three defendants are legally responsible for the actions of four flood engineers who were in charge of running flood operations at the two dams from January 2-11 in 2011. Maurice Blackburn calls the $440 million compensation a "record" and one that will offer some closure for its clients after a long and arduous legal battle. "It has now been ten years since the Brisbane and Ipswich floods, so this settlement is a very welcome development that we hope will bring some much-needed closure to our clients, who have had to endure significant uncertainty and frustration while the defendants fought this case at every turn," Principal Rebecca Gilsenan said. Maurice Blackburn says Seqwater, which is 50% liable for the damage, is not a party to the settlement and will continue to appeal the NSW Supreme Court ruling. "Of course, complete closure can only happen for our clients when Seqwater also settles or Seqwater's appeal is finalised," Ms Gilsenan said. "The class will continue to vigorously fight Seqwater's appeal, buoyed by the substantial settlement reached with the other two defendants." The settlement is subject to approval by the NSW Supreme Court and agreement on terms, with an approval hearing likely to take place before the Seqwater appeal starts in May. [GN] SHREVEPORT, LA: Court Awards More Than $9M to Billing Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Shreveport judge has awarded nearly $10 million to Shreveport water customers that were part of a class action lawsuit over billing issues, the Harper Law Firm announced March 11. On March 10, Judge Michael Pitman issued a ruling against the City of Shreveport in favor of citizens in the amount of $9,626,894 in damages. The ruling will benefit more than 100,000 families who are both current and former water and sewerage customers. This is the eighth consecutive ruling against the City of Shreveport in favor of citizens amid the ongoing water billing litigation. "With this ruling, we hope that the mayor and the city will discontinue their efforts to refuse to repay the citizens of the city for amounts the courts have repeatedly awarded to the citizens of Shreveport for amounts that the city has overcharged them for water and sewer," said one of the attorneys representing citizens, Jerry Harper of the Harper Law Firm. "The Mayor is now faced with the choice of either paying the judgment or seeking an appeal against his own constituents. The City of Shreveport has been fighting its own citizens for years in these cases to resist paying amounts owed to them for overcharges to water and sewer; and, we hope that this judgment will put an end to this practice and that the city will work with us and the court to promptly repay what the citizens are owed." Next in the case, it will be determined how much each member of the suit will receive. Participants will be notified via mail. [GN] SKANSKA KOCH: Cortese Appeals FLSA Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Anthony Cortese, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ANTHONY CORTESE, JAMES KEARNEY, DANIEL JULIO, JOHN SICILIANO, JEFFREY BROOK, and MARK LEYBLE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SKANSKA KOCH, INC., KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE CO., and SKANSKA KOCH - KIEWIT JV, Case No. 20-cv-1632, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on February 22, 2021, the Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order: 1. granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice; and 2. denying the motion for conditional certification. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (the NYLL") against the Defendants. The Defendants moved to dismiss the third amended complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief. The Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA. The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. Because the TAC is being dismissed, the move for conditional certification was denied. The Plaintiffs seek a review of Judge Liman's order. This case arises out of work performed in connection with the Bayonne Bridge "Raise the Roadway Plan" construction project, connecting Bayonne, New Jersey with Staten Island, New York. Pursuant to a 2013 contract (the "Construction Agreement") with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Defendants agreed to serve jointly as the general contractors for the Bayonne Bridge Project. SKKJV allegedly is a joint venture between Skanska Koch and Kiewit formed for purposes of the Bayonne Bridge Project. The Plaintiffs allege that Skanska Koch, Kiewit, and SKKJV constitute "joint employers" under FLSA and the NYLL because they "have an arrangement to share Plaintiffs' services, act directly in the interest of each other on the Project and/or shared control of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees because the Defendants are jointly responsible for completion of the Project as PANYNJ's general contractor." The appellate case is captioned as Cortese v. Skanska Koch, Inc., Case No. 21-473, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, February 25, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Anthony Cortese, James Kearney, Daniel Julio, Mark Leyble, Jeffrey Brooks, John Siciliano, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael H. Ansell, Esq. BRACH EICHLER LLC 101 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-5700 E-mail: mansell@bracheichler.com Defendants-Appellees Skanska Koch, Inc., Kiewit Infrastructure Co., and Skanska Koch - Kiewit JV are represented by: Gregory Robert Begg, Esq. PECKAR & ABRAMSON, P.C. 70 Grand Avenue River Edge, NJ 07661 Telephone: (201) 343-3434 E-mail: gbegg@pecklaw.com ST. PETER'S HEALTH: Class Action Tossed Due to Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------- Phil Drake, writing for Independent Record, reports that a former St. Peter's Health oncologist who was fired in November has good skills but was seriously overloaded with work, a physician who was asked by attorneys for Dr. Thomas Weiner to review accusations against him said in a recent court filing. Dr. Robert R. Witham, who said he has nearly 41 years of experience as a physician, said he reviewed 20,000 pages of medical records pertaining to claims by St. Peter's Health to suspend Weiner's staff privileges as of Nov. 17. Witham said in a Feb. 17 court filing in Lewis and Clark County District Court that he had been asked by Weiner's legal counsel to review seven oncology patients, plus three chronic patients. "Having reviewed the ten medical records in issue, it is my opinion that they do not support either a summary suspension or revocation of Dr. Weiner's medical staff privileges," he said in his declaration, but added St. Peter's should develop an evaluation plan and monitor Weiner's improvement in specific issues for six months. "The hospital should structure a rehabilitation program for a habitual overachiever like Dr. Weiner," Witham wrote later in the report. "It would be good for him and the community." Witham also noted a pain management specialist left Helena in 2018, leaving over 300 patients "stranded" and other doctors referred them to Weiner. He said "it became one more patient care chore Dr. Weiner could not say 'No' to." "Dr. Weiner is not a bad doctor and he has good skills but he is over-loaded," Witham wrote. "The system seems to have failed him piling on favors until he could not function clearly at times and now the hospital is blaming him for agreeing to doing even more work after the pain management specialist left Helena in 2018. The community and hospital profited from his long tenure in the community." St. Peter's Health offered brief comment about the latest filing, saying "We feel strongly about the steps we're taking to protect the safety of our patients. We are not able to provide further comment as these are ongoing legal proceedings." St. Peter's Health said in January that Weiner had incorrectly treated a patient for lung cancer for 11 years before it was determined that the person did not have the disease at the time of death. The hospital's legal counsel also said that it learned of "alarming narcotic prescribing practices" by Weiner. Weiner, who had been with the hospital for nearly 25 years, is contesting his dismissal. Several of his patients had filed their own class-action suit against St. Peter's. That suit was dismissed Feb. 1 by District Court Judge Michael Menahan, who said he lacked the jurisdiction to resolve the dispute at this time, and the claims must first be filed with the Montana Medical Legal Panel. On Jan. 5, St. Peter's Hospital filed a response in 1st Judicial District Court to Weiner's Dec. 14 motion for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and order to show cause after the medical center ended Weiner's employment on Nov. 17. The hospital asked the judge to deny the request, saying the dismissal was in the public's best interest and protected patients who could be harmed if he continued practicing. A hearing on the motions has been set for May 20. Witham, in the Feb. 17 filing, said Weiner was seeing an estimated 300 patients a week, or had nearly 15,000 patient contacts a year. He said factoring in the complexity of the cases, that equaled "four new items" per contact, or 60,000 decisions a year. "How many erroneous decisions out of 60,000 are allowed," Witham asked. "Here the percentage of errors is exceedingly low - minuscule, really." He said Weiner would have to work seven days a week, 10-12 hours a day, to spend an average of eight minutes with each patient. "When does he sleep, eat, interact with friends and family?" Witham asked. "This is a classic prescription for burnout and sleep deprivation cognitive dysfunction." He said if Weiner had sleep deprivation one day per year it would account for all the cases the hospital has faulted him. He also said the absence of cancer at an autopsy "apparently convinced physicians with no training or experience with (redacted) that this was proof the patient never had cancer. This assessment is false." About three pages of Witham's nine pages of testimony is redacted. In his summary, Witham said "this case does not indicate that Dr. Weiner poses an imminent threat to patient safety. "Dr. Weiner is not likely to make mistakes if he has time to document treatment decisions, patient care notes, review the charts and take real personal time to recharge and sleep," he said. Witham said in five of the six additional cases he reviewed, there was a clear diagnosis the patient had cancer, often documented by other practitioners, "and Dr. Weiner's explanation of his care of the patients was reasonable." The Patients of Dr. Tom Weiner have compiled a book in support of him. Also recently, a group of Weiner's patients who have a Facebook page called "We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner," compiled a notebook filled with testimonials to the doctor. "We ask that you try to understand how severely our lives have been impacted," the introduction reads. "Not only have we lost a trusted and well-respected doctor, but we have also lost a quality of care! We are suffering. We are scared. We are asking for your time to read through these stories with an open and caring heart." The book has about 50 pages of stories and testimonials from patients and their families. It includes postings from the private Facebook group "Patients and Friends of Dr. Tom Weiner" and various postings to the news media. Tom Schultz, the host of the radio show "Voices of Montana" discussed the book on Friday, but stayed away from talking about the litigation. [GN] T&D CUSTOM: Ramirez FLSA Suit Seeks Collective Action Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE RAMIREZ, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T&D CUSTOM FENCES AND DECKS, LLC and TIMMY WELLS, Case No. 7:20-CV-144-BO (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Terrence W. Boyle entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a collective action. 2. approving the proposed Notice of Collection Action Lawsuit and Consent to Become Party Plaintiff forms; 3. directing the Defendants to produce to the plaintiff's counsel within 7 days of the date of entry of this order a computer readable data file containing the names, addresses, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security numbers, and dates of birth for all potential plaintiffs; 4. setting the opt-in period of 60 days and shall commence seven days after defendants produce the requested documentation containing information pertaining to potential plaintiffs; 5. directing the Defendants to post the notice at the defendants' facilities in locations where potential plaintiffs are likely to view it. The Court said, "The collective action members in this action are alleged to have performed substantially similar job duties, were required to work off the clock, were not paid overtime wages, and were otherwise subject to the same unlawful wage and hour practices. The allegations in the complaint are supported by the plaintiffs declaration and a declaration by Jordan Samford, one of the plaintiffs co-workers. The Defendants do not argue that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the notice standard, and the Court finds that the plaintiff and potential opt-in plaintiffs are sufficiently similarly situated." The Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated alleging that the defendants failed to pay current and former non-exempt hourly laborers in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay minimum wages and earned overtime wages for all hours worked on their regular payday at the rate required by the FLSA. T&D offers fence and deck installation. A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/30EpubX at no extra charge.[CC] TIKTOK INC: Privacy Class Action Ongoing in Illinois and California ------------------------------------------------------------------- Anna Garrison, writing for Distractify, reports that the social media platform TikTok started as a harmless app meant for dancing, lip-synching, and filling the digital void that Vine left behind. Unfortunately, amid the rising stars and new trends, TikTok has caught heat for stealing personal user data and selling it to third parties. As of Feb. 25, 2021, there is a proposed settlement; here's everything you need to know about the TikTok class-action lawsuit. The TikTok class action lawsuit has been raging for over a year. According to NPR, this legal battle started with 21 federal lawsuits against TikTok, alleging that the company committed "theft of private and personally identifiable TikTok user data." The suits were merged into one direct action suit by the Northern District of Illinois, which cited violations in privacy laws of both Illinois and California as the reason for the compilation. The laws that TikTok violated require users to give written consent before their data can be collected. In the words of the lawyers representing the TikTok users, the app "clandestinely vacuumed up" large amounts of data that could be used to personally identify and spy on users without their knowledge or permission. According to the suit, even draft videos that were never published were fair game for data mining. This is not even the first suit TikTok has faced for data mining -- in February 2019, the app paid a $5.7 million fine for allegedly collecting the data of minors. According to investigations of TikTok noted in the lawsuit, it's clear the company went to great lengths to cover up their theft. The good news, however, is that the suit has finally reached a tentative settlement. TikTok has agreed to pay $92 million to 89 million TikTok users in the United States, among a few other amendments, to ensure the safety of future app users. These demands specified that TikTok could, "no longer record a user's biometric information, including facial characteristics, nor track a user's location using GPS data. TikTok also committed to stop sending U.S. users' data overseas, and the app said it would no longer collect data on draft videos before the content is published." But is it really all's well that ends well? A national security review of TikTok could change whether or not U.S. users access the app. Many are familiar with former President Donald Trump's determination to block U.S. users from the app because of its basis with Chinese company ByteDance, but President Biden has been considerably more lenient with the app. That being said, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is in the middle of a national security review of TikTok presently; so how U.S. users interact with the app could change drastically. Although the intentions of TikTok seemed in the beginning, it might be a little more trouble than it's worth. Many apps nowadays data mine, but for something as serious as a $92 million payout, maybe users are better off finding a different replacement for Vine. [GN] TRICIDA INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Tricida, Inc. ("Tricida" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TCDA) and reminds investors of the March 8, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Tricida stock or options between September 4, 2019 and October 28, 2020 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. 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) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (2) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (3) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Specifically, on July 15, 2020, Tricida issued a press release announcing that, on July 14, 2020, the Company received a notification from the FDA, stating that as part of the FDA's ongoing review of the Company's NDA for veverimer, "the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and postmarketing requirements/commitments at this time." Tricida stated that "[t]he notification does not specify the deficiencies identified by the FDA." On this news, Tricida's stock price fell $10.56 per share, or 40.31%, to close at $15.64 per share on July 16, 2020. 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 Tricida'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] TRUMP CORP: RICO Class Action Pending in New York ------------------------------------------------- Karl Mihm, Jacob Apkon and Sruthi Venkatachalam, writing for Just Security, report that a group of anonymous plaintiffs have filed a class action against the Trump family and their business, alleging that the Trumps used their brand to scam investors into paying for worthless business opportunities. The district court denied the Trumps' bid to force the case into arbitration, and the Trumps are now appealing. Doe v. The Trump Corporation Class Action Doe v. Trump Corp., No. 18-cv-09936 (S.D.N.Y. Oct 29, 2018), appeal docketed, No. 20-01706 (2d Cir. May 28, 2020) Plaintiffs: (Anonymous) Jane Doe, Luke Loe, Mary Moe, Richard Roe Case Summary: On Oct. 30, 2018, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Trump Corporation, Donald Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., and Eric Trump. The complaint alleges that the defendants used their brand name to defraud thousands of working class individuals by promoting numerous businesses in exchange for "secret payments." The companies include ACN Opportunity, LLC (a business based on a controversial multi-level marketing scheme), the Trump Network, LLC (another multi-level marketing scheme), and Business Strategies Group, LLC (a seminar claiming to sell the Trump secrets to success). The lawsuit also claims that the defendants are liable for a "pattern of racketeering activity" violating the RICO Act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) as well as activity violating numerous state consumer protection laws concerning fair business practices and competition. On July 24, 2019, the District Court judge partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The judge dismissed the RICO claims because the Complaint did not "sufficiently plead that Defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs' losses." However, she ruled that the other claims concerning the state laws will not be dismissed under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Case Status: The Trumps' moved to compel forced arbitration and the district court judge denied the motion in Apr. 2020. The court held that the defendants were not party to the arbitration agreement (between ACN and the plaintiffs) and thus, could not compel arbitration. She also found that the motion to compel arbitration was in bad faith as they are acting in a manner that is "substantively prejudicial towards the plaintiffs" and not within the spirit of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Trumps have filed an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit. Following the denial of compelled arbitration, the Trumps also filed a motion to stay, or a motion to halt the legal process. The district court denied this motion, citing the four traditional factors that must be balanced when granting a stay and finding that the defendants have not met the requirements to grant a stay. [GN] U.S. BORAX: Jungers Files Suit in E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Borax Inc., et al. The case is styled as Robert G. Jungers, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Borax Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rio Tinto America Inc., a Delaware corporation; Rio Tinto Services Inc., a Delaware corporation; Amanda Smith, an individual; Does 1 through 100, inclusive; Case No. 1:21-at-00255 (E.D. Cal., March 11, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination U.S. Borax, part of Rio Tinto -- https://www.borax.com/ -- operates in the supply and science of borates—naturally-occurring minerals containing boron and other elements.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. UNITED AIRLINES: Fails to Inspect and Maintain Aircraft, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ news18.com reports that the Chicago-headquartered United Airlines was hit hard by a class-action lawsuit filed by passengers who went through a near-death experience in one of its flights due to an engine explosion. The suit filed describes the near-death experience on February 20 felt by 231 passengers on a direct flight from Denver to Honolulu, Hawaii, as the right engine of the Boeing 777 aircraft suddenly exploded at 10,000 feet, Xinhua news agency reported. Following the explosion, heavy metal debris fell on a heavily-populated Denver suburb. Engine parts in the size of pick-up trucks landed in Broomfield, a suburb of 68,000 people, located 25 miles (40.2 km) north of the Colorado capital, but authorities reported no deaths or injuries. The filing alleged "negligent infliction of emotional distress," and asserted that United Airlines "failed to properly inspect and maintain its aircraft that resulted in the engine failure". "These passengers are lucky to escape with their lives, as the flight managed to land with no serious physical injuries; however, it left these passengers in fear for their life for nearly 20 minutes," the lawsuit stated. [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Hernandez FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ROBERTO HERNANDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00063-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from paying employees. The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020, denying its motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Hernandez v. United States, Case No. 21-123, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March 9, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents ROBERTO HERNANDEZ and JOSEPH QUINTANAR, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William Clifton Alexander, Esq. ANDERSON 2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by: Director, Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00257-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from paying employees. The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020, denying its motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. United States, Case No. 21-128, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March 9, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent DAVID JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by: Sean Janda, Esq. DOJ-CIV 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3388 UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Tarovisky Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JUSTIN TAROVISKY, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00004-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from paying employees. The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order dated December 1, 2020, denying its motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Tarovisky v. United States, Case No. 21-126, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, March 9, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on March 23, 2021; and -- Certificate of Interest is due on March 23, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents JUSTIN TAROVISKY and GRAYSON SHARP, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Heidi R. Burakiewicz, Esq. KALIJARVI, CHUZI & NEWMAN, PC 818 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 331-9260 Defendant-Petitioner UNITED STATES is represented by: Director, Commercial Litigation Branch Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480, Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 UNIVERSITY OF SAINT JOSEPH: Hutchinson Files Suit in D. Conn. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against University of Saint Joseph. The case is styled as Nyoka Hutchinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. University of Saint Joseph, Case No. 3:21-cv-00325 (D. Conn., March 11, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. The University of Saint Joseph -- https://www.usj.edu/ -- is a private university in Connecticut for future professionals in health care and social services, education, digital media, and the sciences.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald S. Johnson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RONALD S. JOHNSON 100 Wells Street, Suite 2C Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (860) 231-9757 Fax: (860) 233-8276 Email: janvier7@aol.com VANDA PHARMA: Robbins LLP May Face Damages Caused by Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Robbins LLP announces that Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NASDAQ: VNDA) may face damages caused by a pending securities lawsuit. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of products for the treatment of central nervous system disorders. Shareholder Class Action Alleging Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) Made Materially False and Misleading Statements Survives Motion to Dismiss According to the complaint filed in February 2019, between 2015 and 2019, Vanda and its officers hid that Vanda was involved in a fraudulent scheme that included violations of federal Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare programs and that Vanda's promotional materials were false and misleading, garnering scrutiny from the FDA. Specifically, Vanda schemed to promote its drugs Fanapt and Hetlioz for "off-label" uses in addition to other prohibited promotional strategies. The complaint further alleges that Vanda's executives and officers knew about the prohibited promotional strategies and actively participated in the fraudulent activity. When the truth was revealed, Vanda's stock declined over 5%. On March 10, 2021, U.S. District Judge Frederic Block denied Vanda and its CEO's motion to dismiss the securities class action against, paving the way for litigation to proceed. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. (VNDA) Shareholders Have Legal Options Contact us to learn more: Lauren Levi (800) 350-6003 llevi@robbinsllp.com, Shareholder Information Form Robbins LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. To be notified if a class action against Vanda Pharmaceuticals settles or to receive free alerts about companies engaged in corporate wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today. Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] VELODYNE LIDAR: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 3 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 Velodyne Lidar, Inc. 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. Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ: VLDR) Class Period: November 9, 2020 to February 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 On February 22, 2021, Velodyne announced that the Board had "removed David Hall as Chairman of the Board and terminated Marta Hall's employment as Chief Marketing Officer of the Company" after the Audit Committee's investigation "concluded that Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall each behaved inappropriately with regard to certain Board and Company processes, and failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with Company officers and directors." In addition, the Company announced that Velodyne's Board formally censured Mr. Hall and Ms. Hall, but that they would remain directors of Velodyne. On this news, Velodyne's common stock fell $3.14, or approximately 15%, to close at $17.97 per share on February 22, 2021. Additionally, Velodyne's warrants fell $1.47, or approximately 20%, to close at $5.90 per warrant on February 22, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 2, 2021, 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) that certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) that the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Velodyne class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/VLDR About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] VELODYNE LIDAR: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of May 3 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Velodyne Lidar, Inc. Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadline listed to petition the court. Further details about the case can be found at the link provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. VLDR Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 Velodyne Lidar, Inc. (NASDAQ:VLDR) VLDR Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased November 9, 2020 - February 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/velodyne-lidar-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=13572&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, Velodyne Lidar, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) certain of Velodyne's directors had failed to operate with respect, honesty, integrity, and candor in their dealings with the Company's officers and directors; (2) the Company was investigating the foregoing matters; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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 http://www.zlk.com[GN] VIACOMCBS INC: Broadcast TV Spot Advertising Related Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by purchasers of broadcast television spot advertising. On September 9, 2019, the Company was added as a defendant in a multi-district putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lawsuit was filed by parties that claim to have purchased broadcast television spot advertising beginning on or about January 1, 2014 on television stations owned by one or more of the defendant television station owners and alleges the sharing of allegedly competitively sensitive information among such television stations in alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The action, which names the Company among fourteen total defendants, seeks monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest as well as injunctions against the allegedly unlawful conduct. On October 8, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which was denied by the court on November 6, 2020. ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our consolidated financial statements." ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. VIACOMCBS INC: Construction Laborers Pension Trust Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative class action suit headed by Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California. On August 27, 2018 and on October 1, 2018, Gene Samit and John Lantz, respectively, filed putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, for claims that are similar to those alleged in the amended complaint described below. On November 6, 2018, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions. On November 30, 2018, the Court appointed Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as the lead plaintiff of the consolidated action. On February 11, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended putative class action complaint against CBS, certain current and former senior executives and members of the CBS Board of Directors. The consolidated action is stated to be on behalf of purchasers of CBS Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock between September 26, 2016 and December 4, 2018. This action seeks to recover damages arising during this time period allegedly caused by the defendants' purported violations of the federal securities laws, including by allegedly making materially false and misleading statements or failing to disclose material information, and seeks costs and expenses as well as remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed motions to dismiss this action, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on January 15, 2020. With the exception of one statement made by Mr. Leslie Moonves at an industry event in November 2017, in which he allegedly was acting as the agent of CBS, all claims as to all other allegedly false and misleading statements were dismissed. ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our consolidated financial statements." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery in CBS Merger-Related Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit headed by Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware. On December 4, 2019, Viacom Inc. merged with and into CBS Corporation, with CBS continuing as the surviving company. At the effective time of the Merger, the combined company changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. The Merger has been accounted for as a transaction between entities under common control as National Amusements, Inc. ("NAI") was the controlling stockholder of each of CBS and Viacom (and remains the controlling stockholder of ViacomCBS). Upon the closing of the Merger, the net assets of Viacom were combined with those of CBS at their historical carrying amounts and the companies have been presented on a combined basis for all periods presented. Beginning on February 20, 2020, three purported CBS stockholders filed separate derivative and/or putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On March 31, 2020, the Court consolidated the three lawsuits and appointed Bucks County Employees' Retirement Fund and International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania and Delaware as co-lead plaintiffs for the consolidated action. On April 14, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Class Action and Derivative Complaint against Shari E. Redstone, NAI, Sumner M. Redstone National Amusements Trust, members of the CBS Board of Directors (comprised of Candace K. Beinecke, Barbara M. Byrne, Gary L. Countryman, Brian Goldner, Linda M. Griego, Robert N. Klieger, Martha L. Minow, Susan Schuman, Frederick O. Terrell and Strauss Zelnick), former CBS President and Acting Chief Executive Officer Joseph Ianniello and nominal defendant ViacomCBS Inc. The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to CBS stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of August 13, 2019, as amended on October 16, 2019. The Complaint also alleges waste and unjust enrichment in connection with Mr. Ianniello's compensation. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. On June 5, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On January 27, 2021, the Court dismissed one disclosure claim, while allowing all other claims against the defendants to proceed. Discovery on the surviving claims will now proceed. ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our consolidated financial statements." ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. VIACOMCBS INC: Discovery Ongoing in CalPERS Suit ------------------------------------------------ ViacomCBS Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the putative class action suit headed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Beginning on November 25, 2019, four purported Viacom stockholders filed separate putative class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On January 23, 2020, the Court consolidated the four lawsuits. On February 6, 2020, the Court appointed CalPERS as lead plaintiff for the consolidated action. On February 28, 2020, CalPERS, together with Park Employees' and Retirement Board Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago and Louis M. Wilen, filed a First Amended Verified Class Action Complaint against National Amusements, Inc. (NAI), NAI Entertainment Holdings LLC, Shari E. Redstone, the members of the Viacom special transaction committee of the Viacom Board of Directors (comprised of Thomas J. May, Judith A. McHale, Ronald L. Nelson and Nicole Seligman) and our President and Chief Executive Officer and director, Robert M. Bakish. The Complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to Viacom stockholders in connection with the negotiation and approval of the Merger Agreement. The Complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs and expenses, as well as other relief. On May 22, 2020, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. On December 29, 2020, the Court dismissed the claims against Mr. Bakish, while allowing the claims against the remaining defendants to proceed. Discovery on the surviving claims will now proceed. ViacomCBS said, "We believe that the remaining claims are without merit and we intend to defend against them vigorously. We are currently unable to determine a range of potential liability, if any. Accordingly, no accrual for this matter has been made in our consolidated financial statements." ViacomCBS Inc., a media and entertainment, creates content and experiences for audiences worldwide. The company operates in four segments: Entertainment, Cable Networks, Publishing, and Local Media. The company was formerly known as CBS Corporation and changed its name to ViacomCBS Inc. in December 2019. ViacomCBS Inc. was founded in 1986 and is based in New York, New York. VOLVO CARS: Faces Class Action Over Sunroof Water Leaks ------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit is still seeking class action certification more than 10 years after the lawsuit was filed. The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit includes any person who between April 29, 2004, and December 31, 2015, purchased or leased any of the following vehicles from a Volvo dealership in California, Florida, Massachusetts or New Jersey and also resided in one of those states at the time of that purchase or lease. -- Volvo S40 -- Volvo S60 -- Volvo S80 -- Volvo V70 -- Volvo V50 -- Volvo XC90 The sunroof lawsuit alleges the vehicles are defective because water leaks into the cabins and damages electronics, carpets and other parts of the interiors. The main argument is drainage tubes and holes get clogged by debris which routes the water into the vehicles. Some Volvo owners claim they spent hundreds of dollars to repair the damage from leaking sunroofs even when the vehicles were under their warranties. The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit was originally filed on behalf of owners nationwide, but the current version includes Volvo customers in the four states named above. Volvo's Motion to Deny Class Action Certification Volvo argues the plaintiffs have filed at least five motions for class action certification since 2012 and allegedly still have been unable to show a class or subclass can be certified. The automaker also says the plaintiffs several times have changed their description of what defines a class of customers. In this fifth motion to certify the lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to certify two subclass in the four states. The first subclass makes up current owners who purchased the affected vehicles from Volvo dealerships and who still own the vehicles. The second subclass consists of current and former Volvo owners in the four states who experienced a sunoof leak and can offer proof they incurred out-of-pocket expenses for repairs. But Volvo says the plaintiffs cannot establish the required numerosity because membership is determined at some future point in time, which is the date when the lawsuit would be certified as a class suit. "Plaintiffs have offered no evidence from which the Court could reasonably determine the number of putative class vehicles that might be included in the proposed subclasses as of some future date when the Court rules on Plaintiffs' latest class certification motion." -- Volvo After this many years in court, two of the plaintiffs allegedly no longer own their Volvo vehicles. Volvo argues this means the plaintiffs have no current owner class representatives for California and Florida. Volvo also points to an expert hired by the plaintiffs, and the automaker says the expert admits his analysis cannot be used to identify anyone who experienced a water leak from the sunroof in their vehicle. Nor is he aware of any database that would identify those who did. The automaker further says nothing in the expert's testimony provides any information that could be used to identify the number of people who experienced a sunroof water leak and incurred prior out-of-pocket expenses related to sunroof leaks. Even if a sunroof did leak at some point, the water leak allegedly doesn't mean an owner paid out-of-pocket for repairs. And to find out who may have paid is allegedly not possible because the plaintiffs haven't provided a way to learn how to do it. According to Volvo, "even if a putative class member experienced a water leak and repaired the vehicle, some vehicles may have been repaired under warranty or at no cost as goodwill by Volvo." Volvo previously argued possibly 0.5% of the vehicles may suffer from leaking sunroofs, but the automaker also says the plaintiffs don't provide any evidence those 0.5% of owners who purchased from a Volvo dealer experienced a sunroof leak and paid their own money for repairs. According to Volvo, the lawsuit was filed more than 10 years ago and the oldest affected Volvo vehicles are now 17 years old. Additionally, it's likely many vehicles will be sold or scrapped in the next year, leaving the plaintiffs unable to show how many vehicles would even be involved in the proposed class action. In its motion to deny class certification, Volvo argues the plaintiffs cannot prove unlawful conduct with common evidence because the allegedly defective sunroof sound traps at issue differ and have different risks of clogging. And the plaintiffs allegedly cannot prove a loss or damages with common evidence. "[T]he overwhelming majority of vehicles in the class never experienced a clogged sunroof drain or water leak, and Plaintiffs' expert's testimony admittedly does not support the diminished value theory on which they rely for an ascertainable loss and damages." -- Volvo Additionally, Volvo alleges the plaintiffs cannot prove causation with common evidence. The Volvo sunroof leak lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey - Neale, et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America LLC, et al. The plaintiffs are represented by Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, McCuneWright LLP, Lite DePalma Greenberg, and Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC. [GN] WELLS FARGO: Droesch Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE DROESCH and SHAKARA THOMPSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., a United States Corporation, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. e 3:20-cv-06751-JSC (N.D. Calif.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. granting conditional certification of Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective: "All individuals currently or formerly employed by Wells Fargo as a Telephone Bankers in the United States at any time from three years before the filing of the initial Complaint through resolution of this action, and: (a) who did not file a timely consent to join form with the court in Singer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (W.D. Tex. Case No. 5:19-cv-00679) or (b) who did not file a timely consent to join form in Harris, et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (D. Ariz. Case No. CV-17-01146-PHX-DMF, consolidated with Kerness v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (D. Ariz. Case No. CV- 17-02516-PHX-DMF) or who filed a timely consent to join form in Harris, but whose claims here nonetheless accrued after the settlement period in that case (i.e., after December 31, 2019); (c); or who filed a timely consent to join form in Harris/Kerness, but whose claims here nonetheless accrued after the settlement period in that case (i.e. after December 5, 2015);" 2. approving the requested 60-day opt in period; 3. requiring Wells Fargo to produce the needed employee contact information within the next 10 days, of this Court's order; 4. approving the Plaintiffs' proposed form of Notice and direct that it be mailed within 20 days of this Court's Order and emailed to all identified Telephone Bankers who worked for Wells Fargo any time since September 28, 2017, with a reminder email sent 40 days after the initial mailing; 5. directing Wells Fargo to post the notice at every call center location; and 6. appointing Christina Humphrey Law, P.C., Gessner Law, PLLP, and Quintilone & Associates as class counsel for the collective class. The Plaintiffs Droesch and Thompson bring this motion pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) of the FLSA to facilitate notice of this case to similarly situated individuals working as non-exempt telephone dedicated employees working in the various call centers of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. The Plaintiffs' complaint challenges a policy and practice that Wells Fargo has long used, and continues to use, to track and record the time of telephone-dedicated employees who work in its call centers across the nation ("Telephone Bankers"). This policy and practice permits and/or requires Telephone Bankers to be logged into their phones by their scheduled start time but does not compensate them for required tasks that can only be performed before and after their scheduled shift times. Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated March 2, 2020 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3rVOKGw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christina A. Humphrey, Esq. CHRISTINA HUMPHREY LAW, P.C. 8330 Allison Ave., Suite C. La Mesa, California 91942 Telephone: (619) 488-6400 E-mail: christina@chumphreylaw.com - and - L. Michelle Gessner, Esq. GESSNERLAW, PLLC 602 East Morehead Street Charlotte, NC 28202 Telephone: (844) 437-7634 E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com - and - Richard E. Quintilone II, Esq. Jeffrey T. Green, Esq. QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES 22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100 Lake Forest, CA 92630 Telephone: (949) 458-9675 Facsimile: (949) 458-9679 E-mail: req@quintlaw.com jtg@quintlaw.com WERNER ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Wage and Hour Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Werner Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal on the order of dismissal in the wage-and-hour class suit in Nebraska, is still pending. The company has been involved in class action litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, in which the plaintiffs allege that we owe drivers for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act and that the company failed to pay minimum wage per hour for drivers in its Career Track Program, related to short break time and sleeper berth time. The period covered by this class action suit is August 2008 through March 2014. The case was tried to a jury in May 2017, resulting in a verdict of $0.8 million in plaintiffs' favor on the short break matter and a verdict in our favor on the sleeper berth matter. As a result of various post-trial motions, the court awarded $0.5 million to the plaintiffs for attorney fees and costs. As of December 31, 2020, the company had accrued for the jury's award, attorney fees and costs in the short break matter and had not accrued for the sleeper berth matter. Plaintiffs appealed the post-verdict amounts awarded by the trial court for fees, costs and liquidated damages. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied Plaintiffs' appeal and granted Werner's appeal, vacating the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. On June 22, 2020, the trial court denied Plaintiffs' request for a new trial and entered judgment in favor of the Company, dismissing the case with prejudice. On July 21, 2020, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of appeal of that dismissal. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Werner Enterprises, Inc., a transportation and logistics company, engages in transporting truckload shipments of general commodities in interstate and intrastate commerce in the United States, Mexico, Canada, and China. It operates in two segments, Truckload Transportation Services and Werner Logistics. Werner Enterprises, Inc. was founded in 1956 and is headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Cardoso Sues for Invasion of Privacy ----------------------------------------------------------- Mariana Cardoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. CACE-21-004989 (Fla. 17th Judicial, Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 10, 2021), is brought under the Florida Security of Communications Act ("FSCA"), arising from the Defendant's unlawful interception of electronic communications. Specifically, this case stems from the Defendant's use of tracking, recording, and/or "session replay" software to intercept the Plaintiff's electronic communications with the Defendant's website, including how they interact with the website, their mouse movements and clicks, information inputted into the website, and/or pages and content viewed on the website. The Defendant intercepted the electronic communications at issue without the knowledge or prior consent of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Defendant did so for its own financial gain and in violation of the Plaintiff's and the Class members' privacy rights under the FSCA. Such clandestine monitoring and recording of an individual's electronic communications has long been held a violation of the FSCA. The Defendant has intercepted the electronic communications involving the Plaintiff's visits to its website, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy and/or exposure of their private information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website approximately 6 times. The Defendant owns and operates the website www.whirlpool.com.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: 305-975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Manuel Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-400-4713 Email: MHiraldo@Hiraldolaw.com WIDEOPENWEST INC: Settlement Reached in Kirkland Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- WideOpenWest, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in Kirkland et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018. Beginning in June 2018, four different plaintiffs' firms filed five separate class-action lawsuits against the company (WOW), certain individual defendants, and the private equity sponsors and underwriters of the May 2017 initial public offering (IPO). The actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the 1933 Securities Act. The three actions filed in New York state court have been consolidated as Kirkland et al. v. WideOpenWest, Inc., et al., 653248/2018. The other two actions, which were filed in Colorado state court, have been stayed by agreement until final resolution of the Kirkland action. The Plaintiffs in Kirkland allege that Defendants made or caused misstatements to be made in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. On January 17, 2019, Defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss all claims for failure to state causes of action which the court denied in part and granted in part on May 18, 2020, with the Company thereafter appealing those claims not dismissed. Prior to an anticipated trial in 2022 or 2023, the parties undertook mediation on November 6, 2020 which, in turn, resulted in a soon-to-be-filed Stipulation of Settlement with the court. WideOpenWest said, "Upon approval of the Court to the Stipulation of Settlement (which is expected in the second quarter of 2021), the Company will be dismissed entirely without any admission of wrongdoing in exchange for a payment of substantially less than that sought by plaintiffs, with the substantial majority of such payment to be funded by the Company's primary D&O carrier." WideOpenWest, Inc. provides high-speed data, cable television, and digital telephony services to residential and business services customers in the United States. The company was formerly known as WideOpenWest Kite, Inc. and changed its name to WideOpenWest, Inc. in March 2017. The company was founded in 2001 and is based in Englewood, Colorado. WORKHORSE GROUP: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of May 7 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 Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS). 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. Workhorse Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: WKHS) Class Period: July 7, 2020 to February 23, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 7, 2021 In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3 billion. On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to Launch MultiBillion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense - not Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV contract. On this news, securities of Workhorse fell $14.88 per share, or 47%, to close at $16.47 in the regular session on February 23, 2021. The price continued to drop in after-hours trading and opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07, a fall of over 50% from the previous open, damaging investors. The complaint, filed on March 8, 2021, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle - electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Workhorse's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Workhorse class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WKHS About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. 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] WORLD WRESTLING: Seeking $500,000 in Legal Fees Over Dismissed Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- H Jenkins at ringsidenews.com reports that Konstantine Kyros is an attorney who led a class action lawsuit against WWE. This lawsuit had a ton of pro wrestling legends involved, but they lost. Now WWE wants recouped for their expenses. Law360 notes that WWE and Vince McMahon are seeking $573,770.44 for legal fees they spent on the now-dismissed class action concussion lawsuit. They claim that attorney Konstantine Kyros is on the hook for this cash. WWE asked a federal Connecticut court for the payment valued over 1/2 million dollars. The filing took place prior to a hearing about WWE's two constituent applications for court-ordered fees. Jerry McDevitt, WWE's attorney who handled this case, further backed up the company's innocence as he discussed the misconduct from Konstantine Kyros as a part of the lawsuit. He violated court orders, didn't comply with court orders, ignored court orders that cautioned him to cease certain behavior or risk sanctions. He would continue the same kind of behavior. He plagiarized and made false allegations based on other lawsuits against the NFL, where he would just parrot allegations that had been made against the NFL or its personnel, and would just change [text], reading from 'NFL' to 'WWE.' The liability for sanctions has been established in three different court orders, that he's supposed to pay all of our attorney's fees in connection with various things he did wrong. The only thing left to be determined is how much that is. Some of the names involved with this class action lawsuit included: Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Road Warrior Animal, Paul Orndorff, King Kong Bundy, and Mr. Fuji. There were a ton of other names connected as well. We will continue monitoring this ongoing situation. WWE won the lawsuit, but they apparently aren't going to stop until Konstantine Kyros pays up. [GN] XL FLEET CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or the "Company") (NYSE: XL) from October 2, 2020 through March 2, 2021 (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 XL Fleet securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit XL Fleet 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 materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: (i) that XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) that at least 18 of 33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (iii) that XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (iv) that XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and (v) 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. On March 3, 2021, Muddy Waters Research ("Muddy Waters") published a report entitled: "XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL): More SPAC Trash," alleging, among other things, that salespeople were "pressured to inflate their sales pipelines materially in order to mislead XL's board and investors" and that "customer reorder rates are in reality quite low" due to "poor performance and regulatory issues." Citing interviews with former employees, the report alleged that "at least 18 of 33 customers XL featured were inactive." Muddy Waters also claimed that XL has "weak technology" and that "XL's announcement of future class 7-8 upfits seems highly promotional" because the task is "too technologically complex for XL engineers to deliver on the promised timeline." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.09, or 13%, to close at $13.86 per share on March 3, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The share price continued to decline by $2.69, or 19.4%, over two consecutive trading sessions to close at $11.17 per share on March 5, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 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 XL Fleet securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/xlfleetcorp-xl-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-377/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com. Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact Information Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] XL FLEET: The Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against XL Fleet Corp. ("XL Fleet" or "the Company") (NYSE: XL) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 2, 2020 and March 2, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 7, 2021. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click https://bit.ly/2ODQaHx to participate. 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. XL Fleet pressured its salespeople to inflate their pipeline of potential sales to artificially boost the Company's backlog of orders. Out of the Company's 33 customers, at least 18 were inactive and hadn't placed orders since 2019. The Company's technology benefits were overstated, offering fleet savings of only 5% to 10%. 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 XL Fleet, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] [*] Dallas Law Firm to Sue Zantac Manufacturers Over Cancer Link ---------------------------------------------------------------- Will Maddox, writing for D Magazine, reports that a Dallas law firm is part of a team taking on some of the biggest drug-makers in a nationwide lawsuit that alleges that over-the-counter heartburn medication Zantac causes cancer. In April 2020, the Food and Drug Administration recalled ranitidine, the generic version of Zantac. The recall was part of an ongoing investigation into the medication, suspected of converting N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen when the drug was exposed to more than room-temperature heat. NDMA can cause several types of cancer; the lawsuit is focusing on cases of prostate, pancreatic, esophageal, gastric, liver, bladder, and breast cancer. Zantac was developed in the 1980s and was among the first drugs to hit $1 billion in annual sales. It was offered over-the-counter and prescription in various forms. The medicine was developed in 1976 by GlaxoSmithKline in the UK; a number of companies have manufactured it over the years and under different brands as the patents ran out. In 2019, an independent lab's experiment found that NDMA in ranitidine at levels above what is considered safe (NDMA is found in small amounts in food and water). After later testing, the FDA found dangerous levels of NDMA in ranitidine even at normal storage conditions. There are numerous opportunities for temperatures to rise and convert the medicine into NDMA. The manufacturing process involves high heat, storage in trucks and warehouses can be at high temperatures, and consumption can cause the medicine to heat up. These are all opportunities for the drug to develop NDMA, plaintiffs claim. The claim is more than 1,000 pages, but in essence, manufacturers, distributors, and retailers should have known that their product would cause cancer when stored at high temperatures, as early studies showed the dangers of the drug and NDMA. It includes gross negligence (they should have known and didn't) and fraud, as reviews say the drug should not have been used over a long time. "They were telling in advertising that this was safe for long-term use," says Nicholas Gibson, an attorney at Fears Nachawati. "There was a study saying that if you do take it, it should be short-term use. So there's a lot of contradicting statements and advertisements that have been misleading." When the drug was recalled, Dallas plaintiff's firm Fears Nachawati began recruiting and accepting clients who may have developed cancer because of their use of Zantac. If someone has one of the cancers listed in the lawsuit and took Zantac at least daily for one year or more significant, they could become a claimant in the case. The suit is multidistrict litigation (MDL), which is similar to a class-action lawsuit but allows for new plaintiffs to be added as they are discovered. The case is being ruled in the federal Southern District of Florida. One issue will be proving the plaintiffs took the drug they claimed. Because it was mostly purchased over the counter, it won't be easy to track. Retailers have offered to release purchase data for the lawsuit, and medical records may show patients were taking the medication if they told their doctors. In addition, NDMA can be found in cigarettes, alcohol, or other chemicals that may have been present on the worksite. Plaintiffs will have to prove that the NDMA came from Zantac. The case is still early in the process, and the firm is advertising to attract clients who have the appropriate types of cancer and consistent use of the drug. It is also accepting referrals from other firms that don't operate in the healthcare space. They are collecting the medical records, reviewing the candidate's strength, and tracking the 150 different manufacturers of ranitidine over the years. Over the last several years, some studies show different levels of NDMA conversion in the drug, but the most recent studies were enough to have firms jump on board and take the case. "We weren't sure if this a good case to take forward if all these different studies are contradicting each other," Gibson said. "But two months ago, the big plaintiff's firms determined that this is a valid claim." A trial date has not been set, but Gibson estimates that it will be the end of 2022 or 2023. [GN] [*] Defense Bar Calls for More Oversight in MDL ----------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that many in the defense bar, and even some plaintiffs attorneys, have called for more oversight in multidistrict litigation, especially after the sudden bankruptcy of Girardi Keese. Tom Girardi needed no introduction when stepping into a courtroom. Founding attorney of Los Angeles-based Girardi Keese, he made his name working on the environmental contamination case made famous from the 2000 film "Erin Brockovich" and took lead roles in numerous mass torts. He handled large numbers of cases over pharmaceutical drugs and for NFL players claiming concussion injuries. He has innumerable accolades for his professional successes: The National Law Journal's annual Elite Trial Lawyers, president of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers and the State Bar of California's Trial Lawyer Hall of Fame. Even his flamboyant personal life was on display. Since 2015, his wife, Erika Jayne, has starred on the Bravo reality TV show "The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills," which included Girardi and his home in Pasadena, California, which a bankruptcy trustee said could be worth $16.5 million. [GN] [*] Florida COVID-Related College Refund Suits Making Slow Progress ------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Rosen, writing for RE, reports that when the coronavirus pandemic prompted colleges and universities to shut their doors last spring and send students home for virtual learning, many families cried foul and fought back in the courts. More than 200 lawsuits have been filed by students and their parents demanding a refund of at least part of their tuition, room and board, and other fees. The common thread in these suits: The education they paid for was not the education they got. As one California Polytechnic University student reportedly said, "I'm not paying full price for YouTube University." Over the past year, several suits have been dismissed and most of the others continue to slowly work their way through the courts. But earlier in February, parents scored a courtroom victory in a Florida class-action case involving fees collected by Miami-Dade College, when a judge refused a motion to have the complaint against Miami-Dade College dismissed. The judge's ruling could have broader implications regarding similar suits around the country. "We have great empathy for everyone affected by (the pandemic), including the schools, but this order would apply to millions of students who have already paid these exact . . . charges" at many other colleges across the country," said Adam Moskowitz, the attorney who handled the class action case. Moskowitz said he will file similar cases seeking class action status on behalf of students who attend other schools in Florida. The ruling against Miami-Dade has been appealed. In many cases, colleges offered refunds for room and board and meal plans that were paid for but went unused because of the pandemic. However, some schools refused to offer tuition refunds because of their own financial struggles. Generally speaking, some schools argued that they didn't have "contracts" with the students, and therefore reimbursement for room and board and user fees were not necessary. The court cases can be divided into two types of lawsuits. One is for COVID-19-related tuition reimbursement; the others are asking for room and board, or fees refunds, for such things as lab supplies, athletics passes, and transportation. The tuition lawsuits face an "uphill battle," said Mark Kantrowitz, a college financing expert and president of Cerebly Inc. "That's because most colleges did not have a different tuition rate for online education, even if they had an online education program prior to the pandemic." However, Kantrowitz said, the cases seeking reimbursement for room and board and fees "are more likely to be successful. For example, housing agreements do not provide for removal from the dorms in the event of a pandemic," he said. The only reason usually given is for "conduct reasons." "Since the housing agreements were drafted by the colleges, that omission will be held against them," Kantrowitz said. To patch that leak, some colleges amended their housing agreements for the current 2020-2021 academic year to address removal for COVID-19 reasons, he said. Meanwhile, these continue to be anxious times for college students. In a January survey of more than 1,000 students by CollegeFinance.com, about 46% said they were attending classes in person, while 54% were attending virtually. And to no one's surprise, about 60% of both virtual and in-person learners rated their current stress levels as "high" or "extremely high." [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 2021. 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 ***