/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210407.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 64 Headlines 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Noto Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial in Bucio Class Action Set for July 12 ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez Appeals Ruling in Suit v. Sheriff ALIA CORP: Audie Files Class Suit in California Superior Court ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Bystolic Related Suit Pending ARROW FINANCIAL: Richard Putative Class Suit vs. GFNB Underway BABCOCK & WILCOX: Discovery Ongoing in Parker Class Suit BAIDU INC: Short Seller Report Related Suit vs. JOYY Underway BAIDU INC: Software-Related Putative Class Suits Underway BAIDU INC: Wolfpack Report Related Putative Class Suits Ongoing BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Granted Final OK BAPTIST HEALTH: Whitley Appeals Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir. BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Underway BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway BROADLEAF MARKETING: Ailion Files TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Georgia CERAGON NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Approval of Suit CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schedule Modification Awaits Court Approval CHICO'S FAS: Parties in Altman Suit Agrees to Submit Settlement COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on Ruling to Remand Nevarez Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET: Breneisen Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin CREDIT CONTROL: Biener Files FDCPA Suit in New York DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Suit DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Stipulation of Settlement Filed ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal ELECTROCORE INC: Priewe Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed EXECUPHARM INC: Clemens Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway FRANCHISE GROUP: Discovery in Labrado Class Suit Ongoing FRANCHISE GROUP: Settlement Hearing in AWPPF Suit Set for April 16 GEICO CASUALTY: Grossman Files Suit in Southern Dist. of New York GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Moved to Southern District of New York GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending GREENSKY INC: Appeal in Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration H&R BLOCK: Trial in Snarr Putative Class Suit Set for Oct. 18, 2022 HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway HILTON HOTELS: Kifafi Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal HP INC: Mobile Emergency Housing Putative Class Suit Ongoing HP INC: York County Putative Class Action Underway INTERSECT ENT: Settlement in Principle Reached in Yaron Suit IQIYI INC: Putative Securities Class Suits in New York Underway JUUL LABS: Caddell Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Critzer Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Dentler Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Dyer Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Eubanks Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Gregg Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Healey Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Ingram Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Ippoliti Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Keen Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks JUUL LABS: Lines Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Moses Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Perry Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Pierre Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Pulce Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Rest Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Smith Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Tippe Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Villasenor Sues Over Products' Undisclosed Health Risk JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues Over E-cigarette's Health Risks LATAM AIRLINES: AGRECU Class Action in Chile Underway LATAM AIRLINES: CONADECUS Class Suit in Chile Ongoing LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Putative Class Suit LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Suit Under Appeal LENDINGCLUB CORP: Facing Bradford Putative Class Suit in Texas LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Putative Class Suit Dismissed LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa Putative Class Action Suit Concluded LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Online Class Related Class Suit Underway LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Bid to Amend Complaint Pending LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs. LLANY Underway LUMOS PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Abramson Securities Class Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1199SEIU Suit Consolidated w/ Generic Pricing MDL MALLINCKRODT PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Shenk Suit MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Pending MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Move Steamfitters Local Union Suit Pending MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Transfer MSP Recovery Claims Suit Pending MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Transfer Rockford Suit to Delaware Pending MALLINCKRODT PLC: Wants to Transfer UAPP Local 322 Suit to Delaware MAPLEBEAR INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Underway MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits NATIONAL WESTERN: Baldwin Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Drulias Putative Class Suit Dismissed NEONODE INC: Purported Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing ONTRAK INC: Facing Farhar Purported Securities Class Suit REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit in California Concluded REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Courtney Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending TREVENA INC: Settlement Reached in PA Consolidated Class Suit TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in Florida Underway VISALUS INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Wakefield TCPA Suit WAITR HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Consolidated Welch & Bates Suit Pending WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's Must File Class Cert. Bid by October ZYNERBA PHARMA: Agreement to Settle Zygel-Related Suit Reached ********* 22ND CENTURY GROUP: Noto Securities Class Suit Tossed w/ Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ 22nd Century Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court dismissed the securities class action suit entitled, Noto. V. 22nd Century Group, Inc., 19-CV-1285, with prejudice. On January 19, 2021, the company announced the dismissal with prejudice of the federal securities class action lawsuit captioned Noto. V. 22nd Century Group, Inc., 19-CV-1285 by a federal district court in the Western District of New York on January 14, 2021. The case was initially filed in the Eastern District of New York, where it was captioned Bull v. 22nd Century Group, Inc. 1:19-CV-00409. In denying the Plaintiffs' request for an opportunity to file another amended Complaint, the Court held that "further amendment would be futile." 22nd Century Group, Inc., a plant biotechnology company, provides technology that allows increasing or decreasing the level of nicotine and other nicotine alkaloids in tobacco plants, and cannabinoids in hemp/cannabis plants through genetic engineering and plant breeding. 22nd Century Group, Inc. was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Williamsville, New York. ABM INDUSTRIES: Trial in Bucio Class Action Set for July 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013, in the consolidated cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services, are currently set for trial on July 12, 2021. The Bucio case is a class action pending in San Francisco Superior Court that alleges we failed to provide legally required meal periods and make additional premium payments for such meal periods, pay split shift premiums when owed, and reimburse janitors for travel expenses. There is also a claim for penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"). On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017. On December 11, 2017, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order denying class certification and remanded the matter for certification of a meal period, travel expense reimbursement, and split shift class. The case was remitted to the trial court for further proceedings on class certification, discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. On September 20, 2018, the trial court entered an order defining four certified subclasses of janitors who were employed by the legacy ABM janitorial companies in California at any time between April 7, 2002 and April 30, 2013, on claims based on alleged previous automatic deduction practices for meal breaks, unpaid meal premiums, unpaid split shift premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses, such as mileage reimbursement for use of personal vehicles to travel between worksites. On February 1, 2019, the trial court held that the discovery related to PAGA claims allegedly arising after April 30, 2013 would be stayed until after the class and PAGA claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013 had been tried. The parties engaged in mediation in July 2019, which did not result in settlement of the case. On October 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to certify additional classes based on an alleged failure to maintain time records, an alleged failure to provide accurate wage statements, and an alleged practice of combining meal and rest breaks. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify additional classes on December 26, 2019. The case was re-assigned to a new judge on January 6, 2020. ABM filed motions for summary adjudication as to certain of plaintiffs' class claims, and the trial court denied those motions in November 2020. The parties engaged in another mediation in January 2021, which did not result in a settlement of the case. Plaintiffs filed motions for summary adjudication and/or summary judgment on some claims in December 2020, and a hearing on these motions is currently set for March 17, 2021. The parties are currently engaged in substantive briefing and began expert discovery in January 2021. The expert discovery serves to provide us with detailed information regarding the plaintiffs' damage calculations. The class action claims accruing prior to April 30, 2013, are currently set for trial on July 12, 2021, although it is unclear whether the trial will proceed at that time in light of the Pandemic and courtroom protocols. Prior to trial, the company will have the opportunity to, among other things, seek decertification of the classes, seek interlocutory appellate review, or engage in further mediation if the company deems such actions appropriate. The company intends to engage in one or more such activities before the trial during the second and/or third quarter. ABM said, "While we believe we have valid defenses to the claims in this proceeding and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves, there can be no assurance that the final resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows." ABM Industries Incorporated is a facility services contractor. The Company provides air conditioning, engineering, janitorial, lighting, parking, security, and other outsourced facility services to the commercial, industrial, and institutional customers across North America. The company is based in New York, New York. ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Gonzalez Appeals Ruling in Suit v. Sheriff --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Daniel Gonzalez, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DANIEL GONZALEZ, et al. v. GREGORY J. AHERN, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-07423-JSC, in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 12, 2020, the Northern District of California issued an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in the case. The Plaintiffs bring three Section 1983 claims against Alameda County, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Gregory Ahearn, Tom Madigan as the Commander in Charge of Detention and Corrections, D. Hesselein as the Detention and Corrections Captain at Santa Rita Jail, four individual Sheriff's deputies, Wellpath Management, Inc., and Aramark Correctional Services LLC. The Plaintiffs are 14 current and former inmates of Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, California. They bring the Section 1983 putative class action alleging violation of their First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking injunctive relief to protect the prisoners at Santa Rita Jail from the Defendants' alleged continuing failure to provide reasonable COVID-19 prevention, care, and treatment. In particular, the Plaintiffs sought redress for conditions including: (1) Excessive lock down, and inadequate time out of cell; (2) Inadequate outdoor recreation; (3) Unsanitary conditions of confinement; (4) Food that is infested with rodents, insects and bird droppings; (5) Food that is inedible due to excessive cooking and overheating; (6) Food that is inedible due to age, poor storage and spoilage, (7) Food that lacks nutritional value and consists primarily of soy powder, white flour and sugar; (8) Lack of medical care for newly booked detainees who are detoxing from drugs; and (9) Requiring prisoners to provide the medical care for newly booked, detoxing detainees. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated March 1, 2021, denying their motion for preliminary injunction. The appellate case is captioned as Daniel Gonzalez, et al. v. Gregory Ahern, et al., Case No. 21-15485, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DANIEL GONZALEZ, ROCCI GARRETT, LAWRENCE J. GERRANS, MICHAEL DION LUCAS, MARTIN GALLARDO, and SERGIO MORALES-SERVIN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, as a class, and subclass, are represented by: Dennis Cunningham, Esq. 115-A Bartlett St. San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 285-8091 E-mail: denniscunninghamlaw@gmail.com - and - Yolanda Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF YOLANDA HUANG P.O. Box 5475 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 329-2140 E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com Defendants-Appellees GREGORY J. AHERN; DERRICK C. DERRICK; THOMAS F. MADIGAN; DENNIS HOUGHTELLING; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; JOE, Deputy; IGNONT, Deputy; KAISER, Technician; LUCKETT-FAHIMA, Captain; ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delawae Limtied Liability Company, its employees and sub-contactors; and WELL-PATH MANAGEMENT, INC., a Delaware Corporation, FKA California Forensic Medical Group, are represented by: Jonathan Jeremy Belaga, Esq. SKANE WILCOX, LLP 33 New Montgomery Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 431-4150 - and - Wendy Wilcox, Esq. SKANE WILCOX, LLP 1055 West 7th Street, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 452-1200 - and - Lynn Krieger, Esq. Susan Faye Shapiro, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-2580 E-mail: Lynn.Krieger@lewisbrisbois.com Susan.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Peter G. Bertling, Esq. BERTLING LAW GROUP, INC. 21 East Canon Perdido Street, Suite 204B Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 879-7558 E-mail: peter@bertlinglawgroup.com - and - Jemma Parker Saunders, Esq. BERTLING & CLAUSEN, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 892-2100 ALIA CORP: Audie Files Class Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alia Corp., et al. The case is styled as Mike Tony Audie, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alia Corp., JSA Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BCV-21-100720 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 1, 2021). The case type is stated as "CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Alia Corp. doing business as McDonald's -- http://www.mcdonalds.com/-- is located in Merced, California and is part of the Fast-Food & Quick-Service Restaurants Industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM 9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 379-6250 ANI PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Bystolic Related Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit initiated by putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic: CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed substantively identical complaints against the Company. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself has not been a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as a defendant based on the Company's January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase Agreement with Amerigen. The complaints allege that the 2013 patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen violates federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of Bystolic. Plaintiffs allege they paid higher prices as a result of delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The complaints do not specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other defendants and the Company at this early stage of the litigation cannot reasonably estimate the potential damages that the plaintiffs will seek. The cases have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the complaints that is pending before the Court and disputes any liability. ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is an integrated specialty pharmaceutical company developing, manufacturing and marketing branded and generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The company is based in Baudette, Minnesota. ARROW FINANCIAL: Richard Putative Class Suit vs. GFNB Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Arrow Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Glens Falls National or GFNB continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Daphne Richard. On July 1, 2020, Daphne Richard, a customer of Glens Falls National or GFNB filed a putative class action complaint against GFNB in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York. The complaint alleges that GFNB assessed overdraft fees on certain transactions drawn on her checking account without having sufficiently disclosed its overdraft-fee practices in its account agreement. Ms. Richard, on behalf of two purported classes, seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, treble damages, enjoinment of the conduct complained of, and costs and fees. The complaint is similar to complaints filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fees. The Company denies any wrongdoing and the case is being vigorously defended. Arrow Financial Corporation is a multi-bank holding company with $3 billion in assets. Based in Glens Falls, New York, the company's family of companies includes Glens Falls National Bank and Trust Company, Saratoga National Bank and Trust Company, and Upstate Agency. BABCOCK & WILCOX: Discovery Ongoing in Parker Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the derivative and class action complaint entitled, Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF. On April 14, 2020, a putative B&W stockholder filed a derivative and class action complaint against certain of the Company's directors (current and former), executives and significant stockholders and the Company (as a nominal defendant). The action was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and is captioned Parker v. Avril, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0280-PAF. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, among other things, did not properly discharge their fiduciary duties in connection with the 2019 rights offering and related transactions. The case is currently in discovery. Babcock & Wilcox said, "We believe that the outcome of the Stockholder Litigation will not have a material adverse impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, net of any insurance coverage." Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc., incorporated on January 13, 2015, is a technology-based provider of fossil and renewable power generation and environmental equipment that includes a suite of boiler products and environmental systems. The Company operates in three segments: Power, Renewable and Industrial. The company is based in Barberton, Ohio. BAIDU INC: Short Seller Report Related Suit vs. JOYY Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Baidu, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that JOYY Inc. is facing a putative class securities class action suit in connection to the allegations contained in the Muddy Waters short seller report. Baidu (Hong Kong) Limited, the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, entered into definitive agreements with JOYY Inc. and certain of its affiliates, which are collectively referred to as JOYY, to acquire YY Live on November 16, 2020, and subsequently amended the share purchase agreement on February 7, 2021. The acquisition has been substantially completed, with certain customary matters remaining to be completed in the near future. On November 18, 2020, Muddy Waters issued a short seller report containing certain allegations against JOYY, including YY Live business. Based on public records, in November 2020, JOYY and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in a federal putative securities class action alleging that they made material misstatements and omissions in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regarding certain of the allegations contained in the Muddy Waters short seller report. On February 8, 2021, JOYY publicly disclosed that its audit committee conducted an independent review of the allegations raised in the report related to the YY Live business, with the assistance of independent counsel, working with a team of experienced forensic auditors and data analytics experts, and that the review concluded that the allegations raised and conclusions reached in the report about the YY Live business were not substantiated. Baidu said, "We are currently unable to predict the possible or further consequence that may arise from or relate in any way to the allegations contained in the Muddy Waters short seller report." Baidu, Inc. is a leading AI company with a strong Internet foundation. The company has been investing in AI since 2010 to improve search and monetization, and have used "Baidu Brain," its core AI technology engine to develop new AI businesses. The breadth and depth of the company's AI capabilities provide the differentiating foundational technologies that power all of its businesses. BAIDU INC: Software-Related Putative Class Suits Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Baidu, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend purported securities class actions related to Baidu Feed. Baidu Feed provides users with personalized timeline based on their demographics and interests. Baidu Feed complements the company's core search product, leverages Baidu AI recommendation algorithms and monetization platform, and contributes to user engagement and retention, including content sharing, likes, and comments. Baidu Feed provides text-to-speech function to help users consume Internet content hands-free, as well as leverages its large traffic to distribute video content from Haokan, Quanmin, iQIYI and third parties. Starting April 2020, the Group and certain of its officers were named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in federal court. The case was purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in the Group's public disclosure documents related to Baidu Feed, which they believe did not comply with the People's Republic of China (PRC) laws and regulations in all material respects". In addition, the Group received a complaint alleging that between April 8, 2016 and August 13, 2020, the Group made material misrepresentations in disclosures filed with the SEC by misrepresenting the financial and business condition of iQIYI and failing to disclose that iQIYI had inadequate controls. Baidu said, "Both of those cases remain in preliminary stage, the likelihood of any unfavorable outcome or the amount or range of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated at the issuance date of the consolidated financial statements." Baidu, Inc. is a leading AI company with a strong Internet foundation. The company has been investing in AI since 2010 to improve search and monetization, and have used "Baidu Brain," its core AI technology engine to develop new AI businesses. The breadth and depth of the company's AI capabilities provide the differentiating foundational technologies that power all of its businesses. BAIDU INC: Wolfpack Report Related Putative Class Suits Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Baidu, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing putative class action suits related to the key allegations contained in the Wolfpack Report. Starting in April 2020, iQIYI and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in four federal putative securities class actions alleging that they made material misstatements and omissions in documents filed with the SEC regarding certain of the key allegations contained in the Wolfpack Report. These four actions are captioned, respectively, as (i) Lee v. iQIYI et al., No. 1:20-cv-01830-LDH-SJB (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Amended Complaint filed Jan. 19, 2021); (ii) Le Rivage LLC v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-03068 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed June 15, 2020); (iii) Jenkins v. iQIYI et al., No. 1:20-cv-03068 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed April 27, 2020); and (iv) Shiferaw v. iQIYI, Inc. et al, No. 1:2020-cv-03115 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed April 17, 2020). All four of these cases allege claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the Lee Action also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. On June 15, 2020, plaintiffs in the Shiferaw Action (filed in the Southern District of New York) voluntarily dismissed their complaint. On July 9, 2020, the Jenkins Action (filed in the Northern District of California) was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On January 19, 2021, plaintiffs in the Lee Action (pending in the Eastern District of New York) filed their consolidated amended complaint, adding the company and others as new defendants. Save for the Shiferaw Action which is dismissed, all actions remain in a preliminary stage. Baidu, Inc. is a leading AI company with a strong Internet foundation. The company has been investing in AI since 2010 to improve search and monetization, and have used "Baidu Brain," its core AI technology engine to develop new AI businesses. The breadth and depth of the company's AI capabilities provide the differentiating foundational technologies that power all of its businesses. BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement in Overdraft Fees Suit Granted Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court granted final approval of the settlement of the litigation over the assessment of overdraft fees. On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer primarily alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not properly applied or disclosed to customers. On December 6, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement subject to court approval. The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted against the Company. Although the Company previously established a $2.0 million reserve relating to this claim, the reserve has been increased to a total of $8.0 million as of December 31, 2020. On December 22, 2020, the Court issued an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the settlement became effective on January 21, 2021. Refunds to current customers were issued by the Bank on January 26, 2021, and the Claims Administrator is in the process of issuing refunds to class members with closed accounts. Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. BAPTIST HEALTH: Whitley Appeals Insurance Suit Ruling to 8th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Brian Whitley filed an interlocutory appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BRIAN WHITLEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. BAPTIST HEALTH; BAPTIST HEALTH HOSPITALS; DIAMOND RISK INSURANCE LLC; ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY; ADMIRAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; IRONSHORE INDEMNITY, INC.; and IRONSHORE SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00624-DPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On November 5, 2020, Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, entered an Order revising the class definition. Judge Marshall found that the current class definition stands with some clarifications prompted by recent briefing. None of the changes compromises all the parties' good work on the class spreadsheets, he said. Judge Marshall also confirmed the Court's ruling at the June 12th hearing that patients in mixed circumstances remain in the class. On February 8, 2021, the Defendants sought an appeal from the Court's Order dated January 29, 2021, granting in part and denying in part a motion for interlocutory appeal. The Court's Orders granting judgment as a matter of law on liability in Whitley's favor and denying reconsideration were certified for the Court of Appeals to decide whether to accept a Section 1292(b) interlocutory appeal. The current appellate case is captioned as Brian Whitley v. Baptist Health, et al., Case No. 21-1633, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Transcript is due on or before April 27, 2021; -- Appendix is due on May 7, 2021; -- BRIEF APPELLANT, Brian Whitley is due on May 7, 2021; and -- Appellee/cross Appellant brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellant's brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Brian Whitley, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by: Frank H. Bailey, Esq. Sach D. Oliver, Esq. Timothy Ryan Scott, Esq. BAILEY & OLIVER LAW FIRM 3606 W. Southern Hills Boulevard Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 202-5200 E-mail: fbailey@baileyoliverlawfirm.com soliver@baileyoliverlawfirm.com rscott@baileyoliverlawfirm.com - and - Donald K. Campbell, III, Esq. Kendel Grooms, Esq. CAMPBELL & GROOMS 8500 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 Telephone: (501) 313-4967 E-mail: don@campbellgrooms.com kendel@campbellgrooms.com - and - Erik S. Heninger, Esq. Jeffrey P. Leonard, Esq. HENINGER & GARRISON 2224 First Avenue, N. Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 E-mail: erik@hgdlawfirm.com jleonard@hgdlawfirm.com Defendants-Appellees Baptist Health, Baptist Health Hospitals,and Diamond Risk Insurance, LLC are represented by: Adam David Franks, Esq. Robert L. Henry, III, Esq. James D. Robertson, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM 425 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3414 Telephone: (501) 372-6175 E-mail: afranks@barberlawfirm.com rhenry@barberlawfirm.com jrobertson@barberlawfirm.com BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated purported class action suit initiated by retailers of collegiate course materials or current or former college students. Between January 22, 2020 and June 15, 2020, thirteen purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, along with several publishers, another collegiate bookstore retailer, and an industry association. The plaintiffs are retailers of collegiate course materials or current or former college students. Although the specific allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally claim, on their own behalf and on behalf of the purported classes, that the Company and the other defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1), Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2), Section 13(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 13(a)), and various state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws for alleged activities in connection with inclusive access and the sale of course materials to universities and their students. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these and other related cases in a consolidated proceeding before the Hon. Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 16, 2020, three named student plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, as did the retailer plaintiffs. Barnes & Noble said, "We intend to vigorously defend this matter and are currently unable to estimate any potential losses." Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is one of the largest contract operators of physical and virtual bookstores for college and university campuses and K-12 institutions across the United States. The company is also one of the largest textbook wholesalers, inventory management hardware and software providers, and a leading provider of digital education solutions. The company is based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. BIODELIVERY SCIENCES: Drachman Class Suit in Delaware Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.). On September 11, 2019, two purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action against the Company and its directors in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2019-0728-AGB (Del. Ch.). The Complaint alleges that the Amendments did not receive the requisite vote of stockholders at the 2018 Annual Meeting and asserts claims for violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law, breach of fiduciary duties, and declaratory judgment. The Complaint seeks, inter alia, a declaration that the Amendments were not validly approved and invalidation of the Amendments, including altering the one-year terms of all directors duly elected at the 2018 and 2019 Annual Meetings to three-year terms. The Complaint also seeks costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees. On July 1, 2020, the defendants filed their response to the Complaint and denied the claims asserted therein. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company, engages in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the United States and internationally. It was founded in 1997 and is headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina. BROADLEAF MARKETING: Ailion Files TCPA Class Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC. The case is styled as Adam Ailion, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Broadleaf Marketing & SEO, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-01324-MLB (N.D. Ga., April 1, 2021). The lawsuit was filed over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). BroadLeaf Marketing and SEO -- https://broadleafseo.com/ -- is both a digital marketing and website development agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: shkoval@aol.com CERAGON NETWORKS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Junk Approval of Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ceragon Networks Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is currently awaiting the court's decision on its motion to dismiss a request for approval of a purported class action before with the District Court of Tel-Aviv. On January 6, 2015, the Company was served with a motion to approve a purported class action, naming the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its directors as defendants. The Motion was filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv. The purported class action alleges breaches of duties by making false and misleading statements in the Company's SEC filings and public statements. The plaintiff seeks specified compensatory damages in a sum of up to $75 million, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The Company filed its defense on June 21, 2015, which was followed by disclosure proceedings. The plaintiff filed his reply to the Company's defense by April 2, 2017. A preliminary hearing was held on May 22, 2017, in the framework of which the Court set dates for response to the Company's above-mentioned requests as well as dates for evidence hearings. In May 2017, the Company filed two requests: the first, requesting to dismiss the plaintiff's response to the Company's defense, or, alternatively, to allow the Company to respond to it; the second, to precede a ruling with regards to the legal question of the governing law. On July 17, 2017, the Court issued its decision in the first request, denying the requested dismissal of plaintiff's response to the Company's defense, but allowing the Company to respond to it; on July 29, 2017, the Court issued its decision in the second request, and denied it. The Company filed its response on September 18, 2017. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff filed a request to summon two of the Company's officers (Company's Chairman, Mr. Yehuda Zisapel and Company's Chief Executive Officer, Ira Palti), and eventually, only the company's CEO was summoned. The first evidence hearing took place on November 2, 2017 and the second and final evidence hearing took place on January 8, 2018. Summaries were filed by the plaintiff on March 21, 2018 and the Company filed its summaries on June 12, 2018. The plaintiff filed their reply summaries on September 5, 2018. On October 4, 2018, an interim decision regarding dual-listed companies, which corresponds with the Company's arguments in this case, was rendered by the Supreme Court of Israel. This Supreme Court decision upholds two recent rulings of District Court of Tel-Aviv (Economic Department), which determined that all securities litigation regarding dual-listed companies should be decided only in accordance with US law (the “Supreme Court Decision”). In light of this, on October 15, 2018, the plaintiff asked the Court to add a plea to his summaries. The Court has approved plaintiff's request and gave to the defendants the right to reply. In accordance, the Company's response was submitted on December 4, 2018. Plaintiff's reply to Company's response was submitted on December 26, 2018. On April 14, 2019, the Court rendered a decision resolving that according to Supreme Court Decision, examination of the legal questions standing in the basis of the Motion, should be based upon US law. Therefore, the Court allowed the plaintiff to amend its Motion within 45 days, so that it would include an expert opinion regarding US law, and an argument regarding US law implementation in the specific circumstances. The Court also decided that amendment of the Motion is subject to plaintiff's payment of 40,000 NIS to the Company. On September 23, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended motion, which included an expert opinion regarding US federal law and lengthy arguments that were added on top of the original Motion specifically in reference to discovery proceedings and evidence hearings that were held as part of the original Motion. Therefore, on September 25, 2019, the Court rendered a decision pointing out that the Amended Motion seemed to include the plaintiff's summaries, and so ordered the plaintiff to clarify whether he was willing to relinquish submitting any additional summaries regarding the evidence that was heard in the original Motion. On October 2, 2019, plaintiff responded, alleging that since the Amended Motion did not include any new facts, there was no need to submit additional summaries regarding the evidence that was heard to this point. On December 30, 2019, the Company submitted a motion to dismiss the Amended Motion. The Company alleged that the Amended Motion included new causes of action, and specifically that the addition of legal causes of action according to US Federal law, could not be filed due to the specific statute of limitations. On January 20, 2020, the plaintiff filed its response. Also, the Court accepted the Company's request to submit its response to the Amended Motion after a decision in the Company's motion to dismiss was rendered. On February 24, 2020, the Court issued a decision, according to which, the Motion would be decided upon the current Court documents, unless either of the parties filed a request to hold a hearing in the matter. As neither of parties requested to hold such a hearing, the parties await the Court's decision in the matter. Ceragon said, "The Company believes that it has strong arguments to support dismissal of the Amended Motion, and that the Court should accept the Company's motion to dismiss it. Furthermore, the Company believes that it has a strong defense against the allegations referred to in the Motion and that the Court should deny it." Ceragon Networks Ltd. provides wireless backhaul solutions that enable cellular operators and other wireless service providers to deliver voice and data services worldwide. The Company was formerly known as Giganet Ltd. and changed its name to Ceragon Networks Ltd. in September 2000. Ceragon Networks Ltd. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. CHEMBIO DIAGNOSTICS: Schedule Modification Awaits Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chembio Diagnostics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties' schedule modification in the consolidated purported securities class action suit entitled, In re Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Securities Litigation, awaits court approval. Four purported securities class action lawsuits were filed by alleged stockholders of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: - Sergey Chernysh v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, and Gail S. Page, filed on June 18, 2020; - James Gowen v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard L. Eberly, and Gail S. Page, filed on June 22, 2020; - Anthony Bailey v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Richard J. Eberly, Gail S. Page, and Neil A. Goldman, filed on July 3, 2020; and - Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P. v. Chembio Diagnostics, Inc., Richard Eberly, Gail S. Page, Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc. and Dougherty & Company LLC, filed August 17, 2020. The plaintiffs in each of the cases alleged claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., and Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P. also asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 relating to Chembio's May 2020 public offering. The company and the plaintiffs entered into court-approved stipulations relieving the defendants of the obligation to respond to the complaints in these cases pending the designation of a lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Eight motions for appointment as lead plaintiff were filed by various prospective lead plaintiffs. However, all but two of these motions were withdrawn or otherwise abandoned, leaving before the Court two motions for appointment as lead plaintiff, one filed by the Special Situations Funds, and one by Municipal Employees' Retirement System of Michigan ("MERS"). By Order entered December 29, 2020, Magistrate Judge Lindsay consolidated the cases and appointed the Special Situations Funds and MERS as co-lead plaintiffs, and their respective counsel as co-lead counsel. The consolidated cases are now pending under the caption "In re Chembio Diagnostics, Inc. Securities Litigation." The Special Situations Funds and MERS filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint on February 12, 2021. In summary, the CAC purports to allege claims based on assertedly false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the performance of the DPP COVID-19 IgM/IgG System, as well as an asserted failure to timely disclose that the Emergency Use Authorization that had been granted by the Food and Drug Administration with respect to the System "was -- or was at an increased risk of -- being revoked." The CAC names as defendants the Company, Richard L. Eberly, Gail S. Page, Neil A. Goldman, Javan Esfandiari, Katherine L. Davis, Dr. Mary Lake Polan, Dr. John Potthoff, and the underwriters for the Company's May 2020 public offering, Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc. and Dougherty & Company LLC. The CAC purports to assert five counts under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act of 1934. Counts I through III are brought under the Securities Act, allegedly on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased Chembio common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's May 2020 offering pursuant to the Company's Form S-3 Registration Statement and its Prospectus and Prospectus Supplement dated May 7, 2020. Count I purports to allege a claim for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants other than Messrs. Eberly and Esfandiari. Count II purports to allege a claim for violation of Section 12 of the Securities Act against all defendants other than Messrs. Eberly and Esfandiari. Count III purports to allege a claim under Section 15 of the Securities Act against Ms. Davis, Dr. Polan, Dr. Potthoff, Ms. Page, and Mr. Goldman. Counts IV and V are alleged claims under the Exchange Act on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons who purchased Chembio securities on the open market between March 12, 2020 and June 16, 2020, inclusive. Count IV purports to allege a claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against the Company, Mr. Eberly, Ms. Page, Mr. Goldman, and Mr. Esfandiari. Count V purports to allege a claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Eberly, Ms. Page, Mr. Goldman, and Mr. Esfandiari. Lead Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the Securities Act Class and the Exchange Act Class, among other things, an award of damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well as an award of reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees and expenses, expert fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The Lead Plaintiffs also seeks rescission "or a rescissory measure of damages" on behalf of the Securities Act Class as to Count II. Pursuant to an Order entered by the Court on January 29, 2021, any defendant wishing to move against the amended complaint was required to file, by February 18, 2021, a letter requesting a pre-motion conference. On that date, the defendants submitted letters to the Court requesting a pre-motion conference regarding anticipated motions to dismiss the CAC, and Lead Plaintiffs responded on February 24, 2021. In its January 29, 2021 Order, the Court indicated that it would consider a briefing schedule on motions to dismiss after it had received and reviewed the parties' correspondence. On March 5, 2021, the Court entered an Order in which the Court advised the parties that it had determined that a pre-motion conference was not necessary and established a briefing schedule on the defendants' anticipated motions to dismiss. Pursuant to that schedule, defendants' motions and supporting papers are due to be filed no later than March 19, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs' opposition papers are due to be filed no later than April 2, 2021, and the defendants' reply papers are due to be filed no later than April 9, 2021. The company had agreed with Plaintiffs' counsel to a modification of the schedule such that defendants' motions and supporting papers would be due to be filed no later than March 26, 2021, the Lead Plaintiffs' opposition papers would be due to be filed no later than April 16, 2021, and the defendants' reply papers would be due to be filed no later than April 30, 2021. This schedule modification is subject to the Court's approval. Chembio Diagnostics Inc. develops diagnostic solutions. The Company offers products for treatment of malaria, ebola, febrile illness, dengue fever, and influenza, as well as provides human and veterinary diagnostics. Chembo Diagnostics serves patients in the United States. The company is based in Hauppauge, New York. CHICO'S FAS: Parties in Altman Suit Agrees to Submit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Chico's FAS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia for approval. In July 2015, White House Black Market, Inc. (WHBM) was named as a defendant in Altman v. White House Black Market, Inc., a putative class action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The complaint alleges that WHBM, in violation of federal law, willfully published more than the last five digits of a credit or debit card number on customers' point-of-sale receipts. The plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each alleged willful violation of the law, as well as attorneys' fees, costs and punitive damages. WHBM denies the material allegations of the complaint and believes the case is without merit. On February 12, 2018, the District Court issued an order certifying the class. Later in 2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case on a classwide basis. The settlement has been held in abeyance pending the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving the same legal allegations as the Altman case and addressing whether the plaintiff may maintain this type of lawsuit in federal court (the "Muransky case"). In the fall of 2020, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in the Muransky case holding that, under the circumstances as alleged by the plaintiff in that case, which are identical to the Altman plaintiff's allegations, the plaintiff cannot maintain the lawsuit in federal court. In light of that decision, the Altman plaintiff re-filed in State Court of Cobb County in the State of Georgia on February 26, 2021. The parties have agreed to submit the proposed settlement to the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia for approval. The proposed settlement would not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. No assurance can be given that the proposed settlement will be approved. Chico's FAS said, "If the proposed settlement is rejected and the case were to proceed as a class action and WHBM were to be unsuccessful in its defense on the merits, then the ultimate resolution of the case could have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations." Chico's FAS, Inc. operates as an omnichannel specialty retailer of women's private branded casual-to-dressy clothing, intimates, and complementary accessories. It operates under the Chico's, White House Black Market, and Soma brand names. The company also sells its products through catalogs and its Websites. Chico's FAS, Inc. was founded in 1983 and is headquartered in Fort Myers, Florida. COMSCORE INC: Privacy Suit Settlement Still Subject to Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- ComScore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Company and Full Circle Studies, Inc.'s settlement with plaintiffs in the class action litigation over alleged violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act remains subject to court approval. On September 11, 2017, the Company and a wholly-owned subsidiary, Full Circle Studies, Inc., received demand letters on behalf of named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleging that the Company and Full Circle collected personal information from users under the age of 13 without verifiable parental consent in violation of Massachusetts law and the federal Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The letters alleged that the Company and Full Circle collected such personal information by embedding advertising software development kits in applications created or developed by The Walt Disney Company. The letters sought monetary damages, attorneys' fees and damages under Massachusetts law. On June 4, 2018, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adding the Company and Full Circle as defendants in a purported class action (captioned Rushing, et al v. The Walt Disney Company, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-04419-JD) against Disney, Twitter and other defendants, alleging violations of California's constitutional right to privacy and intrusion upon seclusion law, New York's deceptive trade practices statute, and Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices and right to privacy statutes. The complaints alleged damages in excess of $5.0 million, with any award to be apportioned among the defendants. On February 26, 2020, the Company and Full Circle reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the complaints in full, with no admission of liability, in return for injunctive relief and payment of the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, to be covered by the Company's insurance. The settlement received preliminary court approval on September 24, 2020; it remains subject to final court approval. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. comScore, Inc. operates as an information and analytics company that measures audiences, consumer behavior, and advertising across media platforms worldwide. The company was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeal on Ruling to Remand Nevarez Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the appeal on the decision to remand the case, Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.), is pending. In March 2019, employees filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods and itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. Nevarez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-03454; C.D. Cal.). The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. In December 2019, the court issued an order denying class certification. In January 2020, the plaintiffs dismissed their Labor Code claims without prejudice, and the court remanded the action to state court. The remand is being appealed. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Bid to Dismiss Soulek Putative Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937, is pending. On June 23, 2020, a putative class action was filed against the Company, the Board of Directors, the Costco Benefits Committee, and others under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Dustin S. Soulek v. Costco Wholesale, et al., Case No. 20-cv-937. The class is alleged to be beneficiaries of the Costco 401(k) plan from June 23, 2014, and the claims are that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the operation and oversight of the plan. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees. On September 11, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and on September 21 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the defendants have also moved to dismiss. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Consolidated Opioid-Related Litigation Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) (N.D. Ohio). In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases concerning the impacts of opioid abuses filed against various defendants by counties, cities, hospitals, Native American tribes, third-party payors, and others. Included are federal cases that name the Company, including actions filed by counties and cities in Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Virginia and South Carolina and a third-party payor in Ohio, class actions filed on behalf of infants born with opioid-related medical conditions in 40 states, and class actions and individual actions filed on behalf of individuals seeking to recover alleged increased insurance costs associated with opioid abuse in 41 states and American Samoa. In 2019, similar actions were commenced against the Company in state court in Utah. Claims against the Company in state courts in New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Arizona have been dismissed. The Company is defending all of these matters. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D. Cal.; filed June 11, 2019). In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Johnson-Chen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended February 14, 2021, that the appeal on the dismissal of the consolidated "Johnson" and "Chen" suit, is pending. The Company and its CEO and CFO are defendants in putative class actions brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Company stock between June 6 and October 25, 2018. Johnson v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Nov. 5, 2018); Chen v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al. (W.D. Wash.; filed Dec. 11, 2018). The complaints allege violations of the federal securities laws stemming from the Company's disclosures concerning internal control over financial reporting. They seek unspecified damages, equitable relief, interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. On January 30, 2019, an order was entered consolidating the actions, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 16, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the court entered an order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint and granting the plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint. A further amended complaint was filed on March 9, which the court dismissed with prejudice on August 19, 2020. An appeal in the Ninth Circuit is pending. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COUNTRYSIDE CHEVROLET: Breneisen Files FCRA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Countryside Chevrolet/Buick/GMC, Inc. The case is styled as Kelly M. Breneisen, Daniel Breneisen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Countryside Chevrolet/Buick/GMC, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00412-SCD (E.D. Wis., March 31, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Countryside Chevrolet Buick GMC dealership -- https://www.countrysidegm.com/ -- offers new & used cars, trucks, and SUVs at the best prices.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Victor T. Metroff, Esq. Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Email: vmetroff@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com CREDIT CONTROL: Biener Files FDCPA Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services, Inc. The case is styled as Yittel Biener, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit Collection Services (CCS), Case No. 7:21-cv-02809 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Credit Control -- https://www.credit-control.com/ -- is a St. Louis credit collection service that offers debt collections, accounts receivables management, security & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@barshaysanders.com DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Employee's Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2020, that discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by a former company employee. In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes could prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that this proceeding gives rise to a probable and estimable loss, and therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of December 29, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos, quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. DIXIE GROUP: Continues to Defend Johnson Class Suit in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dixie Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003. A lawsuit in Georgia was originally filed on November 26, 2019 and is presented as a class action lawsuit by and on behalf of a class of persons who obtain drinking water from the City of Rome, Georgia and the Floyd County Water Department (and similarly situated persons) (generally, for these purposes, residents of Floyd County) (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al., Civil Action No. 19-CV-02448-JFL-003). On January 10, 2020, the Class Action Lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division (styled Jarrod Johnson v. 3M Company, et al Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-0008-AT). The plaintiffs in this case allege their damages include without limitation the surcharges incurred for the costs of partially filtering the chemicals from their drinking water. The Complaint requests a jury trial and asserts damages unspecified in amount, in addition to requests for injunctive relief. The Company has filed a response to the Complaint, intends to defend the matter vigorously, and is unable to estimate its potential exposure, if any, at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Dixie Group, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells floor covering products for residential and commercial applications primarily in the United States. The company was founded in 1920 and is based in Dalton, Georgia. EARTHSTONE ENERGY: Olenik Stipulation of Settlement Filed --------------------------------------------------------- Earthstone Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in Olenik v. Lodzinski et al., executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 2, 2017, Nicholas Olenik filed a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Earthstone's Chief Executive Officer, along with other members of the Board, EnCap Investments L.P., Bold, Bold Holdings and Oak Valley Resources, LLC. The complaint alleges that Earthstone's directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the contribution agreement dated as of November 7, 2016 and as amended on March 21, 2017, by and among Earthstone, Earthstone Energy Holdings, LLC (EEH), Lynden US, Lynden USA Operating, LLC, Bold Holdings and Bold. The Plaintiff asserts that the directors negotiated the business combination pursuant to the Bold Contribution Agreement to benefit EnCap and its affiliates, failed to obtain adequate consideration for the Earthstone shareholders who were not affiliated with EnCap or Earthstone management, did not follow an adequate process in negotiating and approving the Bold Transaction and made materially misleading or incomplete proxy disclosures in connection with the Bold Transaction. The suit seeks unspecified damages and purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of Earthstone and as a class action on behalf of all persons who held common stock up to March 13, 2017, excluding defendants and their affiliates. On July 20, 2018, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the action in its entirety with prejudice. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Delaware Supreme Court. On April 5, 2019, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the proxy disclosure claims but reversed the Delaware Court of Chancery's dismissal of the other claims, holding that the allegations with respect to those claims were sufficient for pleading purposes. After engaging in extensive pre-trial discovery, the parties engaged in a mediation process that resulted in a non-binding settlement term sheet on September 21, 2020. On January 4, 2021, the parties executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Delaware Court of Chancery. The principal terms of the Settlement Agreement are as follows: (i) a $3.5 million all-in cash settlement payment (the "Fund") to be funded by defendants and/or their insurers into an escrow account, (ii) a bi-lateral complete and full release of all claims against defendants and plaintiffs, and (iii) that 55% of the Fund (the derivative payment) be paid to Earthstone to be used as determined by management, according to their fiduciary duties and business judgment, 45% of the Fund (the class payment) be paid to members of the class or current stockholders of Earthstone. The Company expects court approval of the Settlement Agreement and in addition estimates the insurance carriers and related affiliates to reimburse the Company in the amount of $2.8 million and $0.1 million, respectively. Earthstone said, "There is no assurance, however, that the court will approve the settlement. As described above, the Company expects to receive a portion of the derivative payment, however, the amount cannot be reasonably determined at this time." Earthstone Energy, Inc., an independent energy company, engages in the development and operation of oil and gas properties in the United States. Earthstone Energy, Inc. was founded in 1969 and is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas. ELECTROCORE INC: Dismissal of Kuehl Class Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- ElectroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the consolidated class action suit entitled, Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19, is still pending. On July 8, 2019 and August 1, 2019, purported stockholders of the company served putative class action lawsuits in the Superior Court of New Jersey for Somerset County, captioned Paul Kuehl vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19 and Shirley Stone vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Docket No. SOM-L 001007-19, respectively. In addition to the company, the defendants included present and past directors and officers, Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the company's initial public offering (IPO); and two of the company's stockholders. On August 15, 2019, the Superior Court entered an order consolidating the Kuehl and Stone actions, which proceeded under Docket No. SOM-L 000876-19. Each plaintiff was appointed a co-lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which sought certification of a class of stockholders who purchased the company's common stock in the company's IPO or whose purchases are traceable to that offering. The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act with respect to the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. On October 31, 2019, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint or in the alternative to stay the action in favor of the pending federal action. On February 21, 2020, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March 2, 2020, the court entered an amended order dismissing the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. On March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the N.J. Superior Court - Appellate Division. The appeal was fully briefed as of July 17, 2020. The date for argument of the appeal has not yet been set. electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus nerve (VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. ELECTROCORE INC: Priewe Putative Class Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- ElectroCore, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020. On September 26, 2019 and October 31, 2019, purported stockholders of the company served putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey captioned Allyn Turnofsky vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 3:19-cv-18400, and Priewe vs. electroCore, Inc., et al., Case 1:19-cv-19653, respectively. In addition to the company, the defendants include present and past directors and officers, and Evercore Group L.L.C., Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., JMP Securities LLC and BTIG, LLC, the underwriters for the company's initial public offering. The plaintiffs each seek to represent a class of stockholders who (i) purchased the company's common stock in its IPO or whose purchases are traceable to the IPO, or (ii) who purchased common stock between the IPO and September 25, 2019. The complaints each alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with respect to (i) the registration statement and related prospectus for the IPO, and (ii) certain post-IPO disclosures filed with the SEC. The complaints sought unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In the Turnofsky case, on November 25, 2019, several plaintiffs and their counsel moved to be selected as lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Carole Tibbs and the firm Bragar, Eagel & Squire, P.C. On July 17, 2020 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in Turnofsky. In addition to the prior claims, the amended complaint adds an additional director defendant and two investors as defendants, adds a claim against the Company and the underwriters for violating Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. On September 15, 2020, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On November 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Company and the other defendants filed reply papers in support of the motion on December 7, 2020. Argument on the motion to dismiss has not yet been scheduled. The parties have agreed to a non-binding mediation with JAMS, which will occur on March 30, 2021. The Priewe case was voluntarily dismissed on February 19, 2020. electroCore, Inc., a bioelectronic medicine company, engages in developing a range of patient-administered non-invasive vagus nerve (VNS) stimulation therapies for the treatment of various conditions in neurology, rheumatology, and other fields. The company was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. EXECUPHARM INC: Clemens Appeals E.D. Pa. Ruling to Third Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jennifer Clemens filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JENNIFER CLEMENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXECUPHARM, INC. and PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendants, Case No. 2-20-cv-03383, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Clemens, individually and on behalf of a purported class, sued ExecuPharm and parent Parexel over a data breach at ExecuPharm. Clemens worked at ExecuPharm from February to November of 2016 and provided the company "significant amounts of her personal and financial information" as a "condition of her employment." She signed an employment agreement as a further condition of her employment. In it, ExecuPharm agreed to take appropriate measures to protect the confidentiality and security of all personal information. Although Clemens left the Company years ago, ExecuPharm retained her sensitive personal information until at least March 13, 2020. On that date, ExecuPharm's server was hacked by the CLOP ransomware group. Ms. Clemens alleges she learned in an email from ExecuPharm on March 20 that her information was accessed during CLOP's data breach and ExecuPharm confirmed in an April 26 email that her family's most sensitive personal and financial information was shared on the dark web. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 22, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a memorandum finding that the Plaintiff lacks standing and the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to address her claims. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the said order entered by the District Court. The appellate case is captioned as Jennifer Clemens v. Execupharm Inc, et al., Case No. 21-1506, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JENNIFER CLEMENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Mark S. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY 161 Washington Street, Suite 1025 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 342-0700 E-mail: goldman@lawgsp.com - and - J. Austin Moore, Esq. Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: moore@stuevesiegel.com siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com Defendants-Appellees EXECUPHARM INC. and PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL CORP. are represented by: Shifali Baliga, Esq. Kristine M. Brown, Esq. Donald Houser, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-7000 E-mail: shifali.baliga@alston.com kristy.brown@alston.com donald.houser@alston.com FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Indirect Customers' Suit Ongoing in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect customers against Ferrellgas, L.P. Ferrellgas, L.P. has been named as a defendant, along with a competitor, in putative class action lawsuits filed in multiple jurisdictions. The lawsuits, which were consolidated in the Western District of Missouri on October 16, 2014, allege that Ferrellgas and a competitor coordinated in 2008 to reduce the fill level in barbeque cylinders and combined to persuade a common customer to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to direct customers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The lawsuits seek treble damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief and costs on behalf of the putative class. These lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes by the multidistrict litigation panel. The Federal Court for the Western District of Missouri initially dismissed all claims brought by direct and indirect customers other than state law claims of indirect customers under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. The direct customer plaintiffs filed an appeal, which resulted in a reversal of the district court's dismissal. The company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari which was denied. An appeal by the indirect customer plaintiffs resulted in the court of appeals affirming the dismissal of the federal claims and remanding the case to the district court to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Thereafter, in August 2019, Ferrellgas reached a settlement with the direct customers, pursuant to which it agreed to pay a total of $6.25 million to resolve all claims asserted by the putative direct purchaser class. With respect to the indirect customers, the district court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, but then granted in part Ferrellgas' pleadings-based motion and dismissed 11 of the 24 remaining state law claims. As a result, there are 13 remaining state law claims brought by a putative class of indirect customers. Ferrellgas believes it has strong defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself against these remaining claims. Ferrellgas does not believe loss is probable or reasonably estimable at this time related to the putative class action lawsuit. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. distributes and sells propane and related equipment and supplies. The company transports propane to propane distribution locations, tanks on customers' premises, or to portable propane tanks delivered to retailers. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. FIVE POINT: Bayview Hunters Point Litigation Underway ----------------------------------------------------- Five Point Holdings, LLC said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by the residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. In May 2018, residents of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood in San Francisco filed a putative class action in San Francisco Superior Court naming Tetra Tech, Inc. and Tetra Tech EC, Inc., an independent contractor hired by the U.S. Navy to conduct testing and remediation of toxic radiological waste at The San Francisco Shipyard ("Tetra Tech"), Lennar and the Company as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that, among other things, Tetra Tech fraudulently misrepresented its test results and remediation efforts. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against Tetra Tech and have requested an injunction to prevent the Company and Lennar from undertaking any development activities at The San Francisco Shipyard. Since July 2018, a number of lawsuits have been filed in San Francisco Superior Court on behalf of homeowners in The San Francisco Shipyard, which name Tetra Tech, Lennar, the Company and the Company's CEO, among others, as defendants. The plaintiffs allege that environmental contamination issues at The San Francisco Shipyard were not properly disclosed to them before they purchased their homes. They also allege that Tetra Tech and other defendants (not including the Company) have created a nuisance at The San Francisco Shipyard under California law. They seek damages as well as certain declaratory relief. All of these cases have been removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the allegations in all of these cases and may have insurance and indemnification rights against third parties, including related parties, with respect to these claims. Given the preliminary nature of these claims, the Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Five Point Holdings, LLC, through its subsidiary, Five Point Operating Company, LP, plans, develops, and owns mixed-use communities in California, the United States. The company operates through four segments: Newhall, San Francisco, Great Park, and Commercial. The company was formerly known as Newhall Holding Company, LLC and changed its name to Five Point Holdings, LLC in May 2016. Five Point Holdings, LLC was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in Irvine, California. FRANCHISE GROUP: Discovery in Labrado Class Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that discovery in Rene Labrado v. JTH Tax, Inc. is ongoing and the parties have agreed to participate in a mediation currently scheduled to take place in May 2021. On July 3, 2018, a class action complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles by a former employee for herself and on behalf of all other "similarly situated" persons. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company allegedly violated various provisions of the California Labor Code, including: unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely paid, wages not timely paid, non-compliant wage statements, failure to keep pay records, unreimbursed business expenses and violation of California Business and Profession Code Section 17200. The Complaint seeks actual, consequential and incidental losses and damages, injunctive relief and other damages. The Company highly disputes the allegations set forth in the Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss. On May 29, 2019, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, but granted the Company leave to file a motion to strike. The Company filed a motion to strike and on August 20, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion. The Court provided the Company with twenty days to file its answer to the Complaint and lifted the discovery stay. Discovery in this matter is ongoing and the parties have agreed to participate in a mediation currently scheduled to take place in May 2021. Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. FRANCHISE GROUP: Settlement Hearing in AWPPF Suit Set for April 16 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Franchise Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the settlement hearing in the class action and derivative suit initiated by Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, will be held on April 16, 2021 to approve the settlement. On August 12, 2019, Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of the Company filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, against Matthew Avril, Patrick A. Cozza, Thomas Herskovits, Brian R. Kahn, Andrew M. Laurence, Lawrence Miller, G. William Minner Jr., Bryant R. Riley, Kenneth M. Young, and against Vintage, B. Riley, and the Company as a Nominal Defendant. The Derivative Complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty against the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants based on the following allegations: (a) causing the Company to completely transform its business model and to acquire Buddy's at an inflated price, (b) transfer the control of the Company to Vintage and B. Riley for no premium and without a stockholder vote, (c) allowing Vintage and B. Riley's other former stockholders to unfairly extract additional value from the Company by virtue of a Tax Receivable Agreement (TRA), (d) the offering to the Company's non-Vintage and non-B. Riley stockholders of an inadequate price for their shares of Company stock ($12.00 per share), (e) disseminating materially misleading and/or omissive Tender Offer documents, and (f) issuing additional Company shares to Vintage at less than fair value to fund the Tender Offer and Vitamin Shoppe Acquisition. The Derivative Complaint also includes a count of unjust enrichment against Vintage and B. Riley. The Derivative Complaint seeks: (a) declaration that the action is properly maintainable as a class action; (b) a finding the Individual Defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties owed to the class and the Company; (c) a finding that demand on the Company's Board is excused as futile; (d) enjoining the consummation of the Tender Offer unless and until all material information necessary for the Company's stockholders to make a fully informed tender decision has been disclosed; (e) a finding Vintage and B. Riley are liable for unjust enrichment; (f) an award to Plaintiff and the other members of the class damages in an amount which may be proven at trial; (g) an award to Plaintiff and the other members of the class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and expert witness fees and other costs; (h) an award to the Company in the amount of damages it sustained as a result of Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties to the Company; and (i) awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Simultaneously with the filing of the Derivative Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion seeking expedited proceedings. The motion was withdrawn as the Derivative Complaint Individual Defendants agreed to produce certain documents. On October 23, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a Verified Amended Stockholder Class Action and Derivative Complaint, following the Company's filing of the amended and restated offer to purchase on October 16, 2019. The Amended Complaint contained substantially similar allegations but revised certain allegations based on disclosures contained in, or purportedly omitted, from the Offer to Purchase. The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on October 25, 2019, seeking to prevent the consummation of the pending Offer to Purchase unless additional information was disclosed. On November 5, 2019, the Company filed Amendment No. 5 to the Offer to Purchase making certain additional disclosures, and Plaintiff withdrew its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. On February 7, 2020, Matthew Sciabacucchi, a purported stockholder of the Company, filed a motion to intervene to pursue some or all of the derivative claims pending in the Court of Chancery. Mr. Sciabacucchi's motion states that Asbestos Workers' Philadelphia Pension Fund has sold its shares in the Company. The motion to intervene was granted March 10, 2020. On June 8, 2020 the Court entered an order governing briefing on Plaintiff's petition for an interim award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiff's opening brief was filed on June 8, 2020. Defendant's opposition was filed on July 23, 2020, and Plaintiff's reply was due on or before August 6, 2020. The Court held oral arguments on August 18, 2020 and reserved decision on Plaintiff's motion for interim fees. On September 29, 2020, the parties agreed to settle this matter in principle and the matter has been stayed pending the parties' filing of settlement papers. The settlement is expected to contain broad and customary releases. A Scheduling Order was issued by the court on January 7, 2021 for the settlement hearing to be held on April 16, 2021 to approve the settlement. Franchise said, "Despite the parties' desire to settle the matter, there is no assurance that the settlement will be approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery. The Company does not expect the proposed settlement to be material to the Company. As of December 26, 2020, the Company had accrued $0.5 million related to this case, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet." Franchise Group, Inc. is a franchisor operator and acquirer of franchised and franchisable businesses that can be scaled using the company's operating expertise. The company currently operates three reportable segments: Liberty Tax, Buddy's and Sears Outlet. The company is based in Virginia Beach, Virginia. GEICO CASUALTY: Grossman Files Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geico Casualty Company, et al. The case is styled as Todd Grossman, Mujo Perezic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Geico Casualty Company, Geico Indemnity Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-02799 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. GEICO Casualty Company -- https://www.geico.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company offers auto, motorcycle, home, renters, flood, life, general liability, travel, and business insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. GENERALI GLOBAL: Cooper Suit Moved to Southern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Martha Cooper, Daniel Cooper, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Generali Global Assistance, Inc.; Generali U.S. Branch aka Generali Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A. (U.S. Branch); Customized Services Administrators, Inc. dba Generali Global Assistance & Insurance Services; Case No. 3:20-cv-08569, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02803-JGK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Insurance for Insurance Contract. Generali Global Assistance, Inc. -- https://us.generaliglobalassistance.com/ -- provides insurance services. The Company offers travel insurance, identity theft protection, beneficiary companion, travel assistance, and risk management services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gordon Wayne Renneisen, Esq. CORNERSTONE LAW GROUP 351 California St Ste 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 625-5025 Fax: (415) 655-8236 Email: grenneisen@cornerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Christopher Mitchell Hendy, Esq. Bronwyn Fitzgerald Pollock, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: (213) 229-5142 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: mhendy@mayerbrown.com bpollock@mayerbrown.com GOGO INC: Bid to Dismiss Pierrelouis Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gogo Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the putative class action suit entitled, Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., is pending. On June 27, 2018, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division styled Pierrelouis v. Gogo Inc., naming the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, its current Chief Financial Officer and its then-current President, Commercial Aviation as defendants purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our securities from February 27, 2017 through May 4, 2018. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging misrepresentations or omissions by the company purporting to relate to the reliability of and installation and remediation costs associated with CA's 2Ku antenna. The plaintiffs seek to recover from the company and the individual defendants an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2018 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in February 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss such amended complaint. In October 2019 the judge granted the motion to dismiss on two independent grounds, finding that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and that plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity that defendants acted with scienter. The amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and in December 2019, defendants filed a second amended complaint. In July 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting leave to file a proposed third amendment complaint, which was granted by the Court. Plaintiffs proceeded to file the third amended complaint in July 2020 and we filed a motion to dismiss in September 2020. That motion has been fully briefed and the company awaits the Court's ruling. Gogo said, "We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to continue to defend them vigorously. In accordance with Delaware law, we will indemnify the individual named defendants for their defense costs and any damages they incur in connection with the suit. We have filed a claim with the issuer of our Directors' and Officers' insurance policy with respect to this suit. No amounts have been accrued for any potential losses under this matter, as we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the litigation or any potential losses." Gogo Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides inflight broadband connectivity and wireless entertainment services to the aviation industry in the United States and internationally. It operates through three segments: Commercial Aviation North America (CA-NA), Commercial Aviation Rest of World (CA-ROW), and Business Aviation (BA). The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. GREENSKY INC: Appeal in Consolidated Putative Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- GreenSky, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the appeal in the consolidated putative class action suit entitled, In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation, Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), is pending. The Company, together with certain of its officers and directors and one of its former directors and certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO), were named in six putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, all of which actions have been consolidated (In Re: GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the "State Case")), and in two putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court"), both of which actions also have been consolidated (In Re: GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-AKH (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases generally assert on behalf of certain purchasers in the IPO claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company and Individual Defendants (together with the other defendants) filed motions to dismiss in each of the Consolidated Cases. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss the Federal Case, and discovery in the Federal Case is ongoing. On June 1, 2020, the District Court certified a class of stockholders who purchased GreenSky Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. On April 22, 2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed the State Case in its entirety and without leave to amend. On August 13, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the court's order. The Company and the Individual Defendants intend to defend themselves vigorously in all respects in connection with the Consolidated Cases. GreenSky said, "Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the Consolidated Cases. The Company is unable to estimate the amount of reasonably possible losses it may incur with respect to the Consolidated Cases. Moreover, the Company has not determined that the likelihood of loss is probable. Therefore, the Company has not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2020 with respect to the Federal Case or the State Case." GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks. It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the full transaction lifecycle, including credit application, underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. H&R BLOCK: Swanson Putative Class Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration ----------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. has been stayed, pending arbitration. On September 26, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc., HRB Digital LLC and Free File, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 4:19-cv-00788-GAF) styled Swanson v. H&R Block, Inc., et al. The plaintiff seeks to represent both a nationwide class and a California subclass of all persons eligible for the IRS Free File Program who paid to use an H&R Block product to file an online tax return for the 2002 through 2018 tax filing years. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200, et seq., in addition to breach of contract and fraud. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Free File, Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case pending the outcome of arbitration. H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter." H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions, and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. H&R BLOCK: Trial in Snarr Putative Class Suit Set for Oct. 18, 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that a trial date in Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al., has been set for October 18, 2022. On May 17, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against H&R Block, Inc., HRB Tax Group, Inc. and HRB Digital LLC in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco (Case No. CGC-19576093). The case is styled Snarr v. HRB Tax Group, Inc., et al. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 21, 2019 (Case No. 3:19-cv-03610-SK). The plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on August 9, 2019, dropping H&R Block, Inc. from the case. In the amended complaint, the plaintiff seeks to represent classes of all persons, between May 17, 2015 and the present, who (1) paid to file one or more federal tax returns through H&R Block's internet-based filing system, (2) were eligible to file those tax returns for free through the H&R Block Free File offer of the IRS Free File Program, and (3) resided in and were citizens of California at the time of the payments. The plaintiff generally alleges unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive business practices and acts in connection with the IRS Free File Program in violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sections 1750, et seq., California False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq., and California Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The company filed a motion to stay the proceedings based on the primary jurisdiction doctrine and a motion to compel arbitration, both of which were denied. The company filed an appeal of the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, which was denied on December 9, 2020. The company filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 7, 2020, and a renewed motion to compel arbitration and to stay the litigation on February 22, 2021. A trial date has been set for October 18, 2022. H&R Block said, "We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we accrued a liability related to this matter." H&R Block, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides assisted income tax return preparation, digital do-it-yourself (DIY) tax solutions, and other services and products related to income tax return preparation to the general public primarily in the United States, Canada, and Australia. H&R Block, Inc. was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri. HC2 HOLDINGS: Fair Value Investments Putative Class Suit Underway ----------------------------------------------------------------- HC2 Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative stockholder class action suit entitled, Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.). On October 1, 2020, Fair Value Investments Incorporated ("FVI") filed a putative stockholder class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery against HC2 and certain of DBM Global Inc.'s (DBMG's) current and former officers and directors, including current and former HC2 officers and directors AJ Stahl, Kenneth S. Courtis, Robert V. Leffler, Jr., Philip A. Falcone, Michael J. Sena, and Paul Voigt, styled Fair Value Investments Incorporated v. Roach, et al., C.A. No. 2020-0847-JTL (Del. Ch.). In the FVI Action, FVI alleges that HC2, in its capacity as DBMG's controlling stockholder, and DBMG's current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to DBMG and DBMG's minority stockholders by approving certain transactions that allegedly provide disproportionate benefits to HC2. FVI challenges the following transactions: (i) DBMG's payments to HC2 from 2016–present pursuant to a Tax Sharing Agreement between DBMG and HC2; (ii) DBMG acting as a guarantor or providing collateral for loans taken on by HC2; (iii) DBMG's issuance of dividends to its common and preferred stockholders in 2017–2020; (iv) DBMG's issuance of preferred stock to HC2 to finance DBMG's 2018 acquisition of GrayWolf Industrial; and (v) HC2's appointment of directors to DBMG's board of directors by written consent in lieu of holding an annual stockholder meeting. On February 23, 2021, FVI filed an Amended Verified Stockholder Class Action Complaint. In the Amended Complaint, FVI named two additional defendants: HC2's Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Barr, and DBMG's General Counsel, Scott D. Sherman. The Amended Complaint includes additional fact allegations in support of the largely similar claims raised in the original complaint. Defendants expect to file a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in early April. HC2 believes the allegations in the FVI Amended Complaint are without merit and the HC2-related defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which continues to be pending. HC2 intends to vigorously defend this litigation. HC2 Holdings, Inc. provides construction, marine services, energy, telecommunications, insurance, life sciences, broadcasting, and other services in the United States, the United Kingdom, and internationally. The company was formerly known as PTGi Holding Inc. and changed its name to HC2 Holdings, Inc. in April 2014. HC2 Holdings, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in New York, New York. HILTON HOTELS: Kifafi Appeals Ruling in ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jamal J. Kifafi filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in his lawsuit styled Jamal J. Kifafi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., Case No. 1:98-cv-01517-CKK, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This action is brought by Plaintiff Jamal J. Kifafi, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, to recover for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., in the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan. Defendants are the Plan, the individual members of the Committee of the Plan, the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and individual Hilton officers or directors (collectively, "Defendants" or "Hilton"). On May 15, 2009, the Court granted-in-part Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendants had violated ERISA's anti-backloading provision, 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(b)(1)(C), and had violated the Plan's vesting provisions with respect to the rights of four certified subclasses. Having found that Defendants violated ERISA, the Court requested that the parties submit briefs regarding the equitable relief appropriate to remedy the violations. The Plaintiff seeks a review of the Court's Order dated March 1, 2021, denying his motion for order to show cause and denying motion for miscellaneous relief. The appellate case is captioned as Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan, et al., Case No. 21-7025, filed in D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on March 18, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jamal J. Kifafi, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Stephen Robert Bruce, Esq. STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 371-8013 E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net Defendants-Appellees Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan; Hilton Hotels Corporation; James M. Anderson, members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan Committee; Matthew J. Hart, members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan Committee; Barron Hilton; Dieter Huckestein, members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan Committee; and Sam D. Young, Jr., members of the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan Committee, are represented by: Andrew McHie Lacy, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT 900 G Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 636-5500 E-mail: alacy@stblaw.com HP INC: Bid to Nix Suit by Electrical Workers Pension Fund Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the motion to dismiss filed in the putative class action suit entitled, In re HP Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending. On February 19, 2020, Electrical Workers Pension Fund, Local 103, I.B.E.W. filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, Catherine Lesjak, and Steven Fieler in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California. On May 20, 2020, the court appointed the State of Rhode Island, Office of the General Treasurer, on behalf of the Employees' Retirement System of Rhode Island and Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds as Lead Plaintiffs. On July 20, 2020, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which additionally names as defendants Enrique Lores and Christoph Schell. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that from February 23, 2017 to October 3, 2019, HP and the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false or misleading statements about HP's printing supplies business, including HP's use of its four-box model to predict the demand for supplies. It further alleges that Dion Weisler and Enrique Lores violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the Exchange Act by allegedly selling shares of HP common stock during this period while in possession of material, non-public adverse information about HP's print business. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other relief. On October 2, 2020, HP and the named officers filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court heard the motion on February 5, 2021. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Consolidated Gensin Class Suit in Israel Underway --------------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit in Israel entitled, Gensin v. HP Inc. On October 25, 2017, a purported consumer class action, captioned Gensin v. HP Inc., was filed in the District Court in Jerusalem against HP arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion for certification as a class action alleges: (1) tortious wrongdoing in violation of the Computers Law, 5755-1995; (2) breach of Contracts Law, 5731-1970; (3) breach of the Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981; (4) negligence; and (5) improper enrichment. The named petitioner initially sought to represent nationwide classes comprised of anyone who "owns an HP printer that has been blocked, disrupted, or interfered with by HP in the use of ink cartridges not manufactured by HP" or who "purchased ink cartridges not manufactured by HP for use in the blocked printers." Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. On November 16, 2017, a second purported consumer class action was filed against HP in the Central District Court, captioned Dror v. HP, Inc., also arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The petition and motion allege similar causes of action on behalf of similar nationwide classes. After the Dror case was consolidated with the Gensin case in Jerusalem, the District Court on June 24, 2018 dismissed the Dror case and designated Gensin as the lead matter. On March 9, 2020, the petitioner moved to modify the proposed nationwide class to be comprised of "all persons who have an HP printer and whose printer was blocked or rendered unusable by HP with any ink cartridge that is not made by HP" and "all persons who purchased ink cartridges that are not made by HP, for use in the Blocked Printers." On July 2, 2020, HP filed its response to the amended petition. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Dismissal of Parziale Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the appeal on the court's decision in granting the motion to dismiss the suit Parziale v. HP Inc., is pending. On August 27, 2019, a purported consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security in certain OfficeJet printers. The complaint alleges two causes of action under Florida Consumer Protection statutes: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. Sections 501.201 et seq., and (2) violation of the Florida Misleading Advertisement Law, F.S.A. Sections 817.41 et seq. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of "all United States Citizens who, between the applicable statute of limitations and the present, had an HP Printer that was modified to reject third party ink cartridges or refilled HP ink cartridges." On November 13, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding three causes of action to the case: (1) violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1030 et seq., (2) trespass to chattels, and (3) tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiff seeks class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On December 30, 2019, HP moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint. On April 24, 2020, the Court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed plaintiff's causes of action under the Florida Consumer Protection statutes, as well as the tortious interference with business relations claim and four of the five claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court denied HP's motion to dismiss on the remaining claims and on the request for injunctive relief and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. On June 5, 2020, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both a nationwide class and a Florida subclass alleging violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and trespass to chattels. Plaintiff sought class relief, injunctive relief, damages, including punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 29, 2020, the Court granted HP's motion to dismiss, dismissing the case in full with prejudice. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiff filed its opening appellate brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: Mobile Emergency Housing Putative Class Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative consumer class action suit entitled, Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., et al. v. HP, Inc. On December 17, 2020, a putative consumer class action was filed against HP in federal court in the Northern District of California arising out of the use of Dynamic Security firmware updates. The complaint alleges seven claims under federal and California law: (1) violation of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for allegedly causing "damage without authorization" to the plaintiffs' printers; (2) violation of the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (3) violation of the California False Advertising Law; (4) violation of the "fraudulent" prong of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (5) violation of the "unfair" prong of the UCL; (6) violation of the "unlawful" prong of the UCL; and (7) trespass to chattels. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide injunctive-relief class of "all persons in the United States who own a Class Printer" and a monetary relief subclass of those who experienced an error message due to third-party cartridge incompatibility resulting from a firmware update, defining "Class Printers" to include the "HP Color LaserJet Pro M254, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M280, HP Color LaserJet Pro MFP M281, and all other models affected" by the firmware updates described in the complaint. On February 10, 2021, HP filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and in response, on March 2, 2021, plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended complaint adds an additional named plaintiff, a California state consumer subclass, and a California Consumers Legal Remedies Act claim seeking injunctive relief on behalf of the new plaintiff and the state consumer subclass. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. HP INC: York County Putative Class Action Underway -------------------------------------------------- HP Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, York County on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund v. HP Inc., et al. On November 5, 2020, York County, on behalf of the County of York Retirement Fund, filed a putative class action complaint against HP, Dion Weisler, and Catherine Lesjak in federal court in the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that from November 6, 2015 to June 21, 2016, HP and the named former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and making false statements about HP's printing supplies business, including information about HP's channel inventory management and sales practices. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and other relief. HP Inc. provides personal computing and other access devices, imaging and printing products, and related technologies, solutions, and services in the United States and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Personal Systems, Printing, and Corporate Investments. The company was formerly known as Hewlett-Packard Company and changed its name to HP Inc. in October 2015. HP Inc. was founded in 1939 and is headquartered in Palo Alto, California. INTERSECT ENT: Settlement in Principle Reached in Yaron Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Intersect ENT, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement-in-principle has been agreed in the putative class action suit entitled, Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647. On May 15, 2019, a purported stockholder of the Company, Avi Yaron, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled Yaron v. Intersect ENT, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02647, against the Company and certain individual officers and directors alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual officers made false and/or misleading statements about the Company's business and seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees. The Court appointed the lead plaintiff and set a schedule for initial motions and pleadings. By order dated June 19, 2020, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint with leave to amend. On July 29, 2020, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on September 18, 2020. By order dated January 22, 2021, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend. Although the Company continues to believe this lawsuit is without merit, on March 4, 2021, the Company agreed with the plaintiff to a settlement-in-principle that, if approved, will resolve the litigation in its entirety. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement is due on May 5, 2021. Intersect said, "As of this filing, the Court has not yet set a date for the preliminary approval hearing. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has accrued anticipated settlement costs associated with this lawsuit of $0.3 million which is recorded in other current liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets." Intersect ENT, Inc., incorporated on October 6, 2003, is a commercial-stage drug-device company. The Company develops drugs for patients with ear, nose and throat (ENT) conditions. The company is based in Menlo Park, California. IQIYI INC: Putative Securities Class Suits in New York Underway --------------------------------------------------------------- iQIYI, Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend putative securities class action suits entitled, Lee v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1: 2020-cv-0183, Jenkins v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 4:20-cv-02882, and Le Rivage LLC v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-02653. Starting in April 2020, the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in putative securities class actions filed in federal court, captioned Lee v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1: 2020-cv-0183 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed April 16, 2020); Shiferaw v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1: 2020-cv-03115 (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed April 17, 2020); Jenkins v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 4:20-cv-02882 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, filed April 27, 2020); and Le Rivage LLC v. iQIYI, Inc. et al., No. 1:20-cv-02653 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, filed June 15, 2020). All of these cases were purportedly brought on behalf of a class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of alleged misstatements and omissions in the Company's public disclosure documents. On June 15, 2020, the Shiferaw Case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs. On July 6, 2020, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the Jenkins Case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Lee Case, Jenkins Case, and Le Rivage Case remain in their preliminary stages. iQIYI said, "Regardless of the merit of particular claims, legal proceedings and investigations may result in reputational harm, be expensive, time consuming, disruptive to our operations and distracting to management. In the event we do not prevail or we enter into settlement arrangements in any of these proceedings or investigations, we may incur significant expenses which may materially adversely affect our results of operations." iQIYI, Inc. is an innovative market-leading online entertainment service in China. The company's platform features iQIYI original content, as well as a comprehensive library of other professionally-produced content (PPC), professional user-generated content (PUGC) and user-generated content. JUUL LABS: Caddell Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ------------------------------------------------------------------ Meredith Caddell, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02256 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The complaint asserts that rather than helping to reduce the Plaintiff's nicotine consumption, the Plaintiff became addicted to JUUL's products and vapes and increased her nicotine intake substantially. From January 2017 until December 2017, she used a half a pod per day. From January 2018 until August 2019, she used 3 to 4 JUUL pods every day. The Plaintiff began using and purchasing JUUL at the age of 20. The Plaintiff was attracted to JUUL because of, among other things, the youthful-looking persons in its advertisements, that was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish design, and the variety of flavors it came in. These factors caused the Plaintiff to believe that JUUL was safe and appropriate for her to use, even though she was underage. The Plaintiff would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content and dosage, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 24-year old who resides in Banks, Alabama, who began using JUUL's products in January, 2017 after seeing advertisements through social media and hearing about it from friends. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Critzer Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Critzer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02279 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a resident of Apex, North Carolina, who used JUUL right around its launch in 2015. He had been a regular smoker for over fifteen years prior and had used other e-cigarette brands in the past. The Plaintiff began using JUUL products with the hope they would help end his addiction to nicotine. In-store and online advertisements failed to adequately disclose JUUL's rapid and high-concentration nicotine delivery mechanism, or the resultant addiction risk posed by its use. Indeed, Critzer believed that one JUUL pod contained substantially less nicotine than a pack of cigarettes. He would not have purchased JUUL products had he known they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than cigarettes. As a result of the inundation of promotional materials and his worsening nicotine addiction, Critzer's JUUL use has become a constant preoccupation. JUUL is on his mind more than cigarettes ever were. He typically consumes between one-and-a half and two JUUL pods each day, in addition to his usual pack of cigarettes. That represents a 150% - 200% increase in Critzer's nicotine consumption since he began using JUUL. Critzer would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Dentler Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Dentler, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02283 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a resident of Aloha, Oregon, who had been a smoker for over twenty-five years, and typically smoked around a pack of cigarettes daily and began using JUUL products with the hope they would help end her nicotine addiction. The Plaintiff first heard of the JUUL brand from a television commercial touting its efficacy as a cigarette replacement. The commercial characterized JUUL products as inherently safe and failed to adequately disclose JUUL's rapid and high-concentration nicotine delivery mechanism, or the resultant addiction risk posed by its use. Dentler would not have bought JUUL products had she known they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than cigarettes. Indeed, upon her initial purchase, she believed that one JUUL pod only contained a negligible amount of nicotine. Dentler would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Dyer Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Dyer, on behalf of his son, B.D., a minor, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02307 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. When he first began using JUUL products, B.D. was unaware of their addictive potential; Dyer recalls a conversation where his son expressed his belief that JUUL had to be safe because it was different than cigarettes. JUUL's marketing campaigns reinforced such beliefs. B.D. does not recall any nicotine content warnings on the various advertisements he saw online. Since he started using JUUL, B.D. has on occasion tried other e-cigarettes, but always ends up circling back to JUUL, which has a more rapid nicotine delivery mechanism than most other e-cigarette brands. B.D. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Robert Dyer and B.D. are residents of Nauvoo, Alabama. Dyer's son B.D. began using JUUL in October 2015 at the age of 15, shortly after the device's launch in June of the same year. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Eubanks Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------- Joan Eubanks, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02291 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a resident of Tucson, Arizona, who had been a smoker for ten years and would typically smoke less than half a pack of cigarettes each day and initially began using JUUL products with the hope they would help end her addiction to nicotine. The Plaintiff received many promotional emails from JUUL since she began purchasing JUUL products in January 2016. Promotional emails and in-store displays failed to adequately disclose JUUL's rapid and high concentration nicotine delivery mechanism, or the resultant addiction risk posed by its use. She would not have purchased JUUL products if she had known they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream. Eubanks would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, adds the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Gibson Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Gibson, on behalf of his son, K.G., individually and others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02314 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiffs Bruce Gibson and K.G. are residents of Centennial, Colorado. Gibson's son K.G. began using JUUL in 2016 at the age of fourteen. K.G. recalls an in-store display since 2016, in front of the cashiers' counters, prominently exhibiting JUUL products. K.G. is now addicted to JUUL pods. K.G. desires to curb his JUUL use, but the potency of his nicotine to addiction has rendered him totally powerless in his efforts to do so. He has faced disciplinary action at school resulting from his compulsive JUUL use. Moreover, after finding an empty JUUL pod in K.G.'s backpack, the school decided to contact local police, per their tobacco policy. This resulted in a citation, court appearance, and mandatory community service. K.G.'s JUUL use and resultant nicotine addiction has thus led to severe academic and legal repercussions. K.G. has seen two counselors to address his JUUL use and compulsions, and their underlying causes, although thus far to minimal effect. K.G. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Gregg Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Gregg, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02287 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a 19-year-old who resides in Salisbury Mills, New York, who began using JUUL's products in September 2017 after seeing advertisements through TV and hearing about it from friends. Prior to using JUUL, Gregg had never smoked cigarettes or used any other nicotine products. Based on the advertising of JUUL as an "alternative" for smokers and "smoking evolved", Gregg believed JUUL's products were safe, healthy, not highly addictive, and were a safer and less-addictive alternative to cigarettes. Gregg began using and purchasing JUUL at the age of 15. Gregg was attracted to JUUL because of, among other things, the youthful-looking persons in its advertisements, that was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish design, and the variety of flavors it came in. These factors caused Gregg to believe that JUUL was safe and appropriate for her to use, even though she was underage. JUUL's marketing was the primary reason Gregg started JUUL and popularity among her peers was a much smaller consideration. Gregg would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: 334-269-2343 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Healey Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dylan Healey, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02266 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a 23-year-old who resides in Huntington, West Virginia, who began smoking cigarettes at about age 10 or 11 and first began using JUUL products at age 19, around February 2016. The Plaintiff learned about JUUL from advertisements on television and in gas stations. He decided to start using JUUL because he believed that it was a safer alternative to smoking and a means to quit smoking. Based on the advertisements he had seen, he believed that JUUL was safer and less addictive than cigarettes. He saw advertisements at the checkout counter at these stores. He also saw advertisements on Facebook and YouTube. He increased his nicotine consumption significantly when JUULing. He typically consumed between one and two JUUL pods per day. The most he consumed in a single day was between two and three pods. When he was JUULing, he first used his JUUL within 5 minutes of waking. JUULing was on his mind more than cigarettes ever were. Healey would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: 334-269-2343 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Ingram Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jenika Ingram, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02314 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. For a long-time smoker such as Ingram, cigarette and e-cigarette vendors were institutions, of sorts, in her life. When these locations began to feature JUUL advertisements, Ingram felt a sense of trust in their judgment. She did not research JUUL products further after seeing the displays, since they exhibited no warnings as to JUUL's exceptionally high nicotine concentration, nor the risk of further addiction. She began to purchase JUUL products soon after being exposed to the in-store advertisements. By the time JUUL products began to be sold in Mississippi in 2016, Ingram had been an e-cigarette user for around four years. Having successfully quit cigarettes, she now hoped to eliminate her nicotine consumption altogether. Indeed, she initially purchased JUUL products under the impression they would facilitate her transition away from nicotine products. She would not have purchased JUUL products had she known they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than cigarettes or other e-cigarettes. In 2017, health complications, arising from her cigarette and e-cigarette use, forced Ingram to stop using JUUL and other nicotine products. Far from aiding in this process, Ingram's JUUL use only intensified an already daunting challenge. Ingram had experienced no respiratory problems prior to her JUUL use. Ingram would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Ippoliti Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Ippoliti, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02267 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Ippoliti frequently saw promotions for JUUL on social media from both JUUL and people in his social network. Ippoliti never used nicotine before trying JUUL. Based on the advertising of JUUL, Ippoliti believed JUUL's products were safe, harmless, and not addictive. Although he had heard from a friend that the JUUL was "addictive," he thought his friend was describing its appealing flavor and desirability. He was not aware the product contained nicotine. He did not realize that addiction and other health harms were associated with JUUL until he experienced the effects himself. Rather than reducing Ippoliti's nicotine consumption or preventing him from trying cigarettes, Ippoliti became addicted to JUUL's products and vapes. Ippoliti was attracted to JUUL because of, among other things, the youthful-looking persons in its advertisements, that was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish design, and the variety of flavors it came in. Ippoliti was particularly attracted to ads promoting the mango flavor. These factors caused Ippoliti to believe that JUUL was safe, even though he was underage. Ippoliti would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content and dosage, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 21-year old who resides in Marlton, New Jersey, who began using JUUL's products in January 2017 after seeing advertisements through social media, at gas stations, and hearing about it through friends. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Phone: 334-269-2343 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Keen Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela Keen, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02324 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Keen first learned about JUUL from her stepson. She later saw JUUL advertisements at Racetrac stores and decided to buy a JUUL device because of the appealing, exotic flavors. Keen would not have purchased a JUUL device if JUUL had not promoted flavored JUUL pods, such as Mango and Creme Brulee. Prior to using JUUL, Keen smoked about 10 to 20 cigarettes a day. Keen continued to smoke cigarettes while using JUUL, as her addiction to nicotine intensified. Keen stopped using JUUL in September 2018. But she now smokes over 20 cigarettes a day, as she is more addicted to nicotine than before she started using JUUL products. Keen's JUUL use has exacerbated her asthma and resulted in respiratory infections. Keen would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Crowley, Texas who began using JUUL products in September 2017. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Lines Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Randi Lines, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02295 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff initially used JUUL at the behest of her son, who wanted her to stop smoking. Lines herself recognized the benefits of quitting smoking and purchased JUUL products because she thought they would help her, over the long-term, end her addiction to nicotine. Based on the online and television advertisements she saw, Lines believed JUUL to be safer and contain less nicotine than cigarettes. She recalls JUUL advertisements proliferating throughout Facebook in particular. These online advertisements directed her towards JUUL's website, which contained misleading information regarding the health and addiction risks posed by JUUL use. She frequently purchased JUUL products from their website via the online marketplace throughout 2017. Lines did not know that a single JUUL pod delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than an entire pack of cigarettes. None of the advertisements she saw online, or the information she read on JUUL's website, indicated that JUUL contained exceptionally high concentrations of nicotine or that JUUL products posed a risk of addiction. Lines would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a current resident of North Mancato, Minnesota who, before using JUUL for the first time in 2017 at the age of 58, regularly smoked combustible cigarettes and began smoking cigarettes over forty years prior, at the age of fifteen. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Moses Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Moses, on behalf of her daughter, K.S.C., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02316 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Prior to using JUUL, K.S.C. had never used tobacco products. K.S.C. would typically purchase JUUL products from classmates. Moses believes that while K.S.C. likely knew of JUUL's nicotine content when first using the product, K.S.C. was far too young to understand its addictive potential. Moses says that K.S.C. would never have used JUUL products if she understood that they posed an addiction risk similar to, or greater than, that of cigarettes. Both Moses and K.S.C. believe that K.S.C. is currently addicted to nicotine. K.S.C. now consumes between one-half and one full JUUL pod each day. K.S.C. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents of West Jordan, Utah. Moses' daughter K.S.C. first used JUUL in her early adolescence, as early on as JUUL's initial launch in 2015, when K.S.C. was 14 years old. K.S.C. is currently 16 years old. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and Accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E., Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Perry Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vickie Perry, on behalf of her daughter, L.P., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02317 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. L.P. bought her JUUL products from classmates who were of legal age to purchase them from authorized retailers. Prior to using JUUL, L.P. had smoked perhaps a handful of cigarettes in her life. She proceeded to use JUUL on a near-daily basis for the next two years. When she first began using JUUL products, L.P. was unaware of their addictive potential. L.P. and her family endured hardship as a result of her JUUL addiction and struggle still to pick up the pieces. While using JUUL, L.P. developed asthma and began to contend with other upper respiratory difficulties. Her existing anxiety and depression worsened to a considerable degree. She could not reconcile JUUL's place in her life as both a major social tool and a source of significant physical and psychological distress. L.P. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents of Milton, Vermont. Perry's daughter L.P. began using JUUL in early 2018 at age 16 as a result of online fanfare and the device's popularity amongst her peer group. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Pierre Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Pierre, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02298 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff is a resident of Norwich, Connecticut, who began using JUUL products after receiving a coupon in the mail for a free starter-pack in Spring 2018. Pierre was unaware that JUUL products contained substantial amounts of nicotine and that their use posed a risk of addiction. Pierre would not have purchased JUUL products if she knew that they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than cigarettes. Pierre typically purchased her JUUL products from a local corner store, and recalls various promotional materials displayed in-store before and during her use of JUUL. Pierre would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Pulce Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pulce Lacretia on behalf of her daughter, K.P., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02319 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Prior to using JUUL, K.P. had never used tobacco products. She now uses other tobacco products, such as cigars and cigarettes, on an infrequent basis. When she first began using JUUL products, K.P. was unaware of their nicotine content, or the risk of addiction posed by their use. Both Pulce and K.P. believe that K.P. is currently addicted to nicotine. K.P. experiences strong withdrawal if she attempts to go even a short time without using her JUUL. Sadness and depression are common after just several hours without use. As a result, K.P. uses JUUL constantly, thereby exerting pressure on her own friends and family. K.P. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if she had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are residents of Columbia, Tennessee. Pulce's daughter K.P. began using JUUL in late 2017 at the age of 16, primarily as a result of peer pressure. K.P., like many of her peers, had been exposed to JUUL marketing materials via various channels, including social media platforms. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Rest Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristof Rest, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02303 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Rest had very infrequently smoked cigarettes before using JUUL. Based on the advertising of JUUL as an "alternative" for smokers, "smoking evolved," or that consumers should "switch" to JUUL from cigarettes, Rest believed JUUL's products were safe and healthy, were not highly addictive, and was a safer and less-addictive alternative to cigarettes. The fact that JUUL was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish design, and the variety of flavors it came in also made Rest believe that it JUUL was safe to use. Prior to purchasing JUUL, Rest viewed the product's label and saw, among other things, statements that JUUL was an "alternative" to smoking. Rest would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content and dosage, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 27-year old who resides in Miami, Florida, who began using JUUL's products in January 2017 after seeing advertisements on social media and in person. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher G. Paulos, Esq. Matt Schultz, Esq. Ned McWilliams, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN, BARR & MOUGEY, P.A 316 S. Baylen St. Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Phone: (850) 435-7066 JUUL LABS: Smith Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Derrick Smith, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02277 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Smith frequently saw promotions for JUUL on social media from both JUUL and people in his social network. JUUL was popular among Smith's friends and classmates, which made JUUL appear to be cool and safe. Smith had never tried nicotine before he tried JUUL. Based on the advertising of JUUL, Smith believed JUUL's products were safe, healthy, not addictive, did not contain nicotine, and were a safer alternative to cigarettes. Smith began using and purchasing JUUL at the age of 16. Smith was attracted to JUUL because of, among other things, the youthful-looking persons in its advertisements, that was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish and discrete design, and the variety of flavors it came in. Smith would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content and dosage, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a 22-year old who resides in Olympia, Washington, who began using JUUL's products in August 2015 after seeing advertisements through social media, at gas stations, and hearing about JUUL through friends. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Tippe Sues Over E-cigarette's Undisclosed Health Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Tippe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02302 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. The Plaintiff initially began using JUUL products with the hope they would help end his addiction to nicotine. Billboards and online advertisements failed to adequately disclose JUUL's rapid and high concentration nicotine delivery mechanism, or the resultant addiction risk posed by its use. Indeed, Tippe believed that one JUUL pod contained substantially less nicotine than a pack of cigarettes. He would not have bought JUUL products had he known they delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than cigarettes. Tippe did not know that a single JUUL pod delivered more nicotine to the bloodstream than an entire pack of cigarettes. Tippe would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a resident of Providence, Rhode Island who, before using JUUL for the first time in February 2017 at the age of 53, regularly smoked combustible cigarettes. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 JUUL LABS: Villasenor Sues Over Products' Undisclosed Health Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Villasenor, individually and as the legal Guardian of her minor child E.M. and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02309 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. Nor did they indicate that JUUL was an age-restricted product. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. E.M. has never used any other form of nicotine before or after starting JUUL. Based on the advertising of JUUL as an "alternative" for smokers, "smoking evolved", and that consumers should "switch" to JUUL from cigarettes, E.M. believed JUUL's products were safe, healthy, not highly addictive, and were a safer and less-addictive alternative to cigarettes. Prior to purchasing JUUL, E.M. viewed the product's label and saw, among other things, statements that JUUL was an "alternative" to smoking. E.M. was attracted to JUUL because of, among other things, the youthful-looking persons in its advertisements, that was advertised as a cool part of a fun lifestyle, its stylish design, and the variety of flavors it came in. E.M.'s favorite flavor is Mint. These factors caused E.M. to believe that JUUL was safe, even though she was underage. E.M would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content and dosage, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff E.M. is a 16-year old who resides in Reno, Nevada, who began using JUUL's products in June 2018 after seeing advertisements through social media, at gas stations, and hearing about JUUL through friends. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarette devices, JUUL pods and accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq. Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq. James W. Lampkin II, Esq. Sydney Everett, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC 234 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36103 Email: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com James.Lampkin@BeasleyAllen.com Sydney.Everett@BeasleyAllen.com JUUL LABS: Williams-Walker Sues Over E-cigarette's Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Tonya Williams-Walker on behalf of her son, M.W. and of others similarly situated v. JUUL LABS, INC.; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; and RIAZ VALANI, Case No. 3:21-cv-02321-WHO (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2021), seeks damages or other relief as a result of personal injuries allegedly attributable to the Plaintiff's and class members' use of JUUL products. The complaint asserts that none of the Defendants' advertisements, in-store promotions, or labels adequately disclosed the nature or addiction risks of JUUL's products, the actual amount of nicotine in or delivered by JUUL's products, that JUUL was engineered to deliver nicotine rapidly and in great quantities, or that use of JUUL products poses significant health risks. Nor did they indicate that JUUL was an age-restricted product. The complaint relates that the swift rise in a new generation of nicotine addicts has overwhelmed parents, schools, and the medical community, drawing governmental intervention at nearly every level -- but it's too little, too late. This public health crisis is no accident, it says. What had been lauded as progress in curbing cigarette use, JUUL Labs Inc.'s (JLI) co-founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees viewed as opportunity. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (together, the "Management Defendants"), they succeeded in hooking millions of youth, intercepting millions of adults trying to overcome their nicotine addictions, and, of course, earning billions of dollars in profits. The complaint alleges that JLI, the Management Defendants and Altria engaged in a campaign of deceit, through sophisticated mass media and social media communications, advertisements and otherwise, about the purpose and dangers of JUUL products. JUUL products' packaging and advertising grossly understates the nicotine content in its products. Advertising campaigns featured JUUL paired with food and coffee, positioning JUUL as part of a healthy meal, a normal part of a daily routine, and as safe as caffeine. The complaint further alleges that JLI and the Management Defendants reached their intended demographic through a diabolical pairing of notorious cigarette company advertising techniques (long banned for cigarettes because they cause young people to start smoking) with cutting-edge viral marketing campaigns and social media. They hired young models and advertised using bright, "fun" themes, including on media long barred to the cigarette industry, such as billboards, on children's websites such as "Nick Junior" and Cartoon Network, and on websites providing games and educational tools to students in middle school and high school. JLI and the Management Defendants also employed young social-media "influencers" and celebrities popular with teenagers. According to the most recent scientific literature, notes the complaint, JUUL products cause acute and chronic pulmonary injuries, cardiovascular conditions, and seizures. Yet JUUL products and advertising contain no health risk warnings at all. Many smokers, believing that JUUL would help them "make the switch," ended up only further trapped in their nicotine addiction. Older adults who switch to JUUL are more susceptible to cardiovascular and pulmonary problems, and CDC data shows that older patients hospitalized due to vaping lung related conditions had much longer hospital stays than younger patients. And a generation of kids is now hooked, ensuring long term survival of the nicotine industry because, today just as in the 1950s, 90% of smokers start as children. Prior to using JUUL, M.W. had never smoked a cigarette or used any other tobacco product in his life. Yet within two years of using JUUL for the first time, M.W. developed a nicotine addiction so severe, he required admission to a medical facility for a supervised nicotine detoxification. None of the advertisements or promotional materials M.W. had been exposed to prior to his summer camp adequately disclosed the hazards of JUUL use. He does not recall seeing any warnings about JUUL's high nicotine content or addictive nature. Knowledge of either factor would have led him to reject pressure from his peers to try JUUL at his summer camp. M.W. would not have purchased or started using JUUL's products if he had been adequately warned about the nicotine content, that it delivered even more nicotine than cigarettes, risks of addiction, and other health risks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs Williams-Walker and M.W. are residents of Laurel, Maryland. Williams-Walker's son M.W. was first exposed to the JUUL brand in 2017 at the age of 14 and began using JUUL later that year as a result of peer pressure. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and Accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 LATAM AIRLINES: AGRECU Class Action in Chile Underway ----------------------------------------------------- LATAM Airlines Group S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the Chilean Association of Consumers and Users ("AGRECU") Class Action Lawsuit filed by AGRECU against LATAM Airlines Group S.A. for alleged breaches of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights due to flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, requesting the nullity of possible abusive clauses, the imposition of fines and compensation for damages in defense of the collective interest of consumers. LATAM has hired specialist lawyers to undertake its defense. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is a Pan-Latin American airline holding company involved in the transportation of passengers and cargo and operates as one unified business enterprise. The company is based in Santiago, Chile. LATAM AIRLINES: CONADECUS Class Suit in Chile Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- LATAM Airlines Group S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by the National Corporation of Consumers and Users ("CONADECUS"). On June 25, 2020, CONADECUS filed a class action against LATAM Airlines Group S.A. in a Chilean Court, for alleged breaches of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights due to flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 Pandemic, requesting the nullity of possible abusive clauses, the imposition of fines and compensation for damages in defense of the collective interest of consumers. On July 4, 2020 the company filed a motion for reversal against the ruling that declared the action filed by CONADECUS admissible, a decision is pending to date. On July 11, 2020 the company requested the Court to comply with the suspension of this case, ruled by the Chile Insolvency Court, in recognition of the foreign reorganization procedure pursuant to the Chilean Insolvency Act, for the entire period that said proceeding lasts, a request that was accepted by the Court. CONADECUS filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal against this resolution should the motion for reconsideration be dismissed. The Chile Insolvency Court dismissed the reconsideration motion on August 3, 2020, but admitted the appeal. The appeal is currently pending before the Santiago Court of Appeals. The amount at the moment is undetermined. Parallel to the lawsuit in Chile, on August 31, 2020, CONADECUS filed on appeal with the Bankruptcy Court because of the automatic suspension imposed by Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code that, among other things, prohibits the parties from filing or continuing with claims that involve a preliminary petition against the Borrowers. CONADECUS petitioned (i) for a stay of the automatic suspension to the extent necessary to continue with the class action against LATAM in Chile and (ii) for a joint hearing by the Bankruptcy Court and the Chile Insolvency Court to hear the matters relating to the claims of CONADECUS in Chile. On September 16, 2020, the Borrowers filed their objection against CONADECUS' appeal and the Official Unsecured Creditors Committee presented a statement in support of the Borrowers' position. On December 18, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court partially granted CONADECUS's request, only in the sense of allowing them to continue with their appeal against the resolution of the 23rd Civil Court and only for the purposes that the Court of Appeals determine whether or not the suspension is appropriate under the Chilean Insolvency Act. On February 9, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order to lift the automatic stay to permit the continuation of CONADECUS' appeal in Chile against the judicial approval of a class action settlement with the Chilean Association of Consumers and Users (AGRECU). LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is a Pan-Latin American airline holding company involved in the transportation of passengers and cargo and operates as one unified business enterprise. The company is based in Santiago, Chile. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Continues to Defend Erceg Putative Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit entitled, Erceg v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-01153. In February 2020, the putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuit alleges violations of California and Massachusetts law based on allegations that LendingClub recorded a call with plaintiff without notifying him that it would be recorded. Plaintiff seeks to represent a purported class of similarly situated individuals who had phone calls recorded by LendingClub without their knowledge and consent. LendingClub filed a motion to dismiss certain of plaintiff's claims, strike nationwide class allegations, and, alternatively, to stay the litigation. Rather than oppose that motion, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Company again filed a motion to stay, or alternatively to dismiss certain of the claims in the amended complaint and to strike nationwide class allegations. That motion was heard by the Court on July 9, 2020. On July 28, 2020, the Court entered an order granting the Company's motion to stay Plaintiff's California claims pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in a case involving the California Invasion of Privacy Act, dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's claim under Massachusetts law, and denying the Company's motion to strike Plaintiff's nationwide class allegations. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Dismissal of Veal Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that lead plaintiffs in Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599, have appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2016, the Company received a formal request for information from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC commenced an investigation concerning certain of the Company's policies and practices and related legal compliance. On April 25, 2018, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern District of California (FTC v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 3:18-cv-02454) alleging causes of action for violations of the FTC Act, including claims of deception in connection with disclosures related to the origination fee associated with loans available through the Company's platform, and in connection with communications relating to the likelihood of loan approval during the application process, and a claim of unfairness relating to certain unauthorized charges to borrowers' bank accounts. In May 2018, following the announcement of the FTC's litigation against the Company, putative shareholder class action litigation was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California (Veal v. LendingClub Corporation et.al., No. 5:18-cv-02599) against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company's description of fees and compliance with federal privacy law in securities filings. On January 7, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint which asserts the same causes of action as the original complaint and adds additional allegations. That complaint was subsequently dismissed by the Court with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 19, 2019, which modified and added certain allegations and dropped one of the former officer defendants as a defendant in the case, but otherwise advanced the same causes of action. On June 12, 2020, the Court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss by defendants without leave to amend, in part, and with leave to amend, in part. On July 27, 2020, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice with the Court indicating their intention not to file a Third Amended Complaint in this case and requesting that the Court enter judgment. The Court entered judgment and dismissed all claims in the case the same day. The lead plaintiffs have appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The timing of a ruling in the appeal is uncertain. The Company denies and will vigorously defend against the allegations in the case. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Facing Bradford Putative Class Suit in Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a putative class action suit entitled, Bradford v. Lending Club Corporation, No. 4:21-cv-00588. In February 2021, the putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The lawsuit asserts a cause of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) based on allegations that the Company obtained Plaintiff's credit report without his consent or authorization and without a permissible purpose under the FCRA. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated persons in the case and seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, among other relief. No assurances can be given as to the timing, outcome or consequences of this matter. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Shron Putative Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, Shron v. LendingClub Corp., 1:19-cv-06718, has been dismissed. In July 2019, the putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in federal court in the State of New York alleging various claims including fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and violations of the federal Truth-in-Lending Act and New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, et seq., based on allegations, among others, that the Company made misleading or inadequate statements or omissions in relation to the total cost and origination fee associated with loans available through the Company's platform. The plaintiff sought to represent classes of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit. The Company filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff's claims on an individual basis. The Court denied that motion on July 13, 2020. The Company filed a notice of appeal with respect to the Court's decision. The parties have finalized a settlement to resolve this litigation, the terms of which are not material to the Company's financial position or results of operations, the Court has vacated its prior order denying the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the case has been dismissed with prejudice. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LENDINGCLUB CORP: Sosa Putative Class Action Suit Concluded ----------------------------------------------------------- LendingClub Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, Sosa v. LendingClub Corporation, No. 1:20-cv-05256, has been concluded. In July 2020, the putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and various state law claims based on allegations that the plaintiff, who alleges he is visually-impaired, encountered access barriers in visiting LendingClub's website that denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the services of the website. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals in the lawsuit and sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, among other relief. In September 2020, LendingClub filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint denying liability in the case. The parties have reached agreement to resolve the matter, the terms of which are not material to the Company's financial position or results of operations and the plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice. This case is now concluded. LendingClub Corporation operates an online lending marketplace platform that connects borrowers and investors in the United States. The company's marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal loans, unsecured education and patient installment loans, auto refinance loans, and small business loans. It also enables investors to invest in a range of loans based on term and credit. The company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. LINCOLN EDUCATIONAL: Online Class Related Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Educational Services Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in connection with transitioning from in-person to online classes due to COVID-19. Following a wave of hundreds of class action lawsuits being served upon colleges and universities across the country in connection with transitioning from in-person to online classes due to COVID-19, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in New Jersey Federal District Court and served on December 21, 2020. Like most of the other lawsuits across the country, the suit alleges breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conversion. In lieu of an answer, on January 25, 2021, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for Failure to State a Claim. The Motion remains pending before the Court. On February 17, 2021, Plaintiff's counsel notified the Company that it would be amending its complaint to address deficiencies the Company outlined in its Motion to Dismiss. Lincoln Educational Services Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, provides various career-oriented post-secondary education services in the United States. The Company was founded in 1946 and is based in West Orange, New Jersey. LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Underway --------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policy owners and seek damages on their behalf. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend 2017 COI Rate Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend TVPX ARS Suit --------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by LNL or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Bid to Amend Complaint Pending ------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint styled Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, is still pending. Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:16-cv-00827, is a putative class action that was served on the company (LNL) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. In response, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which the company had opposed. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Hanks Class Suit Against LLANY Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company. Hanks v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff's policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant in the case. In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the 1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged in the defense of this case. On September 30, 2020, the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted in part Voya's motion for summary judgment. The court has not yet set a trial date, and we continue to vigorously defend this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Nitkewicz Putative Class Suit vs. LLANY Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY) continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Andrew Nitkewicz. Andrew Nitkewicz v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:20-cv-06805, is a putative class action that was filed on August 24, 2020. Plaintiff Nitkewicz, as trustee of the Joan C. Lupe Trust, seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and for which planned annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums were paid for any period beyond the end of the policy month of the insured's death. Plaintiff alleges LLANY failed to refund unearned premium in violation of New York Insurance Law Section 3203(a)(2) in connection with the payment of death benefit claims for certain insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and pre-judgment interest on behalf of the various classes and sub-class. Lincoln National said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LUMOS PHARMA: Settlement Reached in Abramson Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lumos Pharma Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that a settlement has been reached in the securities class action suit entitled, Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545-WHP. On or about May 12, 2016, Trevor Abramson filed a putative securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Abramson v. NewLink Genetics Corp., et al., Case 1:16-cv-3545. Subsequently, the Court for the Southern District of NY appointed Michael and Kelly Nguyen as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of Kahn, Swick & Foti, LLC as lead counsel in the Securities Action. On October 31, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Company, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer Charles J. Link, Jr., and the Company's former Chief Medical Officer and President Nicholas Vahanian. The amended complaint alleges the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements that caused losses to the Company's investors. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 14, 2017. On March 29, 2018, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice, and gave the lead plaintiffs until May 4, 2018 to file any amended complaint attempting to remedy the defects in their claims. On May 4, 2018, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the Defendants. Like the first amended complaint, the second amended complaint alleges that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements or omissions relating to the Phase 2 and 3 trials and efficacy of the product candidate algenpantucel-L that caused losses to the Company's investors. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify any alleged damages in the second amended complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they sought to recover damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period of September 17, 2013 through May 9, 2016, inclusive, at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on July 31, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Court for the Southern District of NY dismissed the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, with prejudice, and closed the case. On March 14, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. The briefing on lead plaintiffs' appeal was completed in early July 2019 and oral argument before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was held on October 21, 2019. In an opinion dated July 13, 2020, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the second amended complaint in part, vacated the district court's dismissal of the second amended complaint in part, and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings. On August 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing en banc requesting reconsideration of portions of the opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Petition on September 8, 2020 and issued a mandate to the Court for the Southern District of NY on September 15, 2020. On December 16, 2020, the Company reached a settlement in principle to fully resolve the Securities Action. The agreement, which is subject to final documentation, court approval and certain other conditions, provides in part for a settlement payment in exchange for the dismissal and a release of all claims against the Defendants in connection with the securities class action suit. The full amount of the settlement payment is expected to be paid by the Company's insurance provider under its insurance policy. Lumos Pharma Inc. develops biopharmaceutical products. The Company operates as a stage biopharmaceutical development company developing a treatment for CTD patients and their families. Lumos Pharma offers therapies to patients afflicted with unmet medical needs in severe, rare, and genetic diseases. The company is based in Austin, Texas. MALLINCKRODT PLC: 1199SEIU Suit Consolidated w/ Generic Pricing MDL ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the putative class action suit entitled, 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. In December 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and more than thirty other pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons and entities that indirectly purchased, paid, or provided reimbursement for the purchase of defendants' generic drugs, other than for resale, from May 2009 to the present. The lawsuit generally alleges that defendants conspired to allocate customers and fix prices for generic pharmaceutical drugs beginning in May 2009. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief based on violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. An amended complaint was filed on January 7, 2021. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Agreement in Principle Reached in Shenk Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the parties participated in mediation sessions, which resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the Shenk lawsuit. In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its CEO in the D.C. District Court, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt's publicly traded securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements related to Acthar Gel and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term sustainability of Acthar Gel revenues and the exposure of Acthar Gel to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the D.C. District Court. The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the D.C. District Court. The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit, captioned Fulton County Employees' Retirement System v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company, its CEO and its former CFO in the D.C. District Court. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9, 2018. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018, alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, against the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants (collectively, the "Shenk Defendants"), and containing similar claims, but further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement restrictions for Acthar Gel. The consolidated complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part, and denied in part by the court on July 30, 2019. On September 1, 2020, the case deadlines were suspended to allow the parties to pursue mediation. On October 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the individual named defendants. On December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 105 seeking to enjoin lawsuits or administrative proceedings brought by various parties, with an exception for the Shenk lawsuit solely to the extent necessary to allow the previously scheduled mediation to proceed to its conclusion and to potentially settle the Shenk lawsuit, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. On December 7, 2020 and January 12, 2021, the parties participated in mediation sessions, which resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the Shenk lawsuit. Mallinckrodt said, "The settlement will be funded solely from the proceeds of the remaining Shenk Defendant's applicable directors and officers liability insurance policies and is subject to approval of the D.C. District Court and the Bankruptcy Court, among other terms and conditions." Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Appeal on Stay of Strougo Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the appeal made in the putative class action suit entitled, Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., regarding the Bankruptcy Court action in staying the suit, is pending. In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and on July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff alleging an expended putative class period of May 3, 2016 through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau, Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell, Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey. The amended complaint claims that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed disclose that: (i) the CMS had informed the Company that it was using the wrong base date AMP for calculating the Medicaid rebate the Company owed CMS for Acthar Gel each quarter since 2014; (ii) the Company's reported net income was improperly inflated in violation of GAAP; (iii) the Company's contingent liabilities associated with the rebates owed to CMS for Acthar Gel were misrepresented; (iv) the Company's fiscal year 2019 guidance for Acthar Gel net sales was false; (v) the Company failed to disclose material information regarding the cases captioned Landolt v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 1:18-cv-11931-PBS (D. Mass.) (Landolt) and U.S. ex rel. Strunck v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0175-BMS (E.D. Pa.) (Strunck), or the related investigation by the DOJ and (vi) the Company failed to disclose that the clinical trials for Acthar Gel were purportedly initiated in order to make it appear that alternative revenue opportunities for Acthar Gel existed and thus offset the expected 10% decline in net sales as a result of the rebates the Company now had to pay. On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined proceedings against the Strougo Defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court action to the U.S. District Court in Delaware through a motion for leave to appeal. The Company filed its opposition to this motion on December 28, 2020. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Move Steamfitters Local Union Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the company's motion to transfer Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, et al., to the District of Delaware, is pending. In July 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (EDPA), proceeding as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, et al. The complaint makes similar allegations as those alleged in related state and federal actions that were filed by the same plaintiff's law firm in New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland, and includes references to allegations at issue in a qui tam action that was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA . The complaint alleges the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); violations of the Pennsylvania (and other states) Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection laws; negligent misrepresentation; aiding and abetting/conspiracy; and unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. In January 2021, the Company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 opposes transfer. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Transfer MSP Recovery Claims Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the company's motion for transfer to the District of Delaware the putative class action suit entitled, MSP Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., is pending. In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019, in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and names additional defendants. The complaint alleged that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by its predecessor in interest's acquisition of the U.S. rights to Synacthen and reaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all third-party payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for, provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August 1, 2007 to present. In March 2020, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. MSP filed an amended complaint on July 3, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in August 2020. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2021, the Company moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. MSP opposes transfer. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Bid to Transfer Rockford Suit to Delaware Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the Company's motion for transfer of the putative class action suit entitled, City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al., to the District of Delaware is pending. In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint was subsequently amended to, among other things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present. Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) laws, as well as various state law claims in connection with the distribution and sale of Acthar Gel. In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019. The court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims. The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar Gel. To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by its predecessor-in-interest's acquisition of the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2021, the Company moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Rockford opposes transfer. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MALLINCKRODT PLC: Wants to Transfer UAPP Local 322 Suit to Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mallinckrodt plc said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2020, that the Company moved to transfer the putative class action suit initiated by the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322, to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. In November 2019, the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and other defendants in New Jersey state court on behalf of New Jersey and third party payers for alleged deceptive marketing and anti-competitive conduct related to the sale and distribution of Acthar Gel. The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) statute, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment. The proposed class is defined as "All third-party payers and their beneficiaries (1) who are current citizens and residents of the State of New Jersey, and (2) who, for purposes other than resale, purchased or paid for Acthar Gel from August 27, 2007 through the present." In January 2020, after removing the complaint to federal court in New Jersey, the Company moved to dismiss or stay the case. On August 18, 2020, the court dismissed all claims against the Company other than Local 322's antitrust claim relating to the Company's predecessor-in-interest's acquisition of Synacthen(R) Depot ("Synacthen") . The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. In October 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. In January 2021, the Company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Mallinckrodt plc, together with its subsidiaries, develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes specialty pharmaceutical products and therapies in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Specialty Brands, and Specialty Generics and Amitiza. The company was founded in 1867 and is based in Staines-Upon-Thames, the United Kingdom. MAPLEBEAR INC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maplebear, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Maplebear, Inc. d/b/a Instacart.com, Case No. 2:21-cv-01785 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Instacart -- https://www.instacart.com/ -- is an American company that operates a grocery delivery and pick-up service in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com MEDTRONIC PLC: Suit Over Covidien Acquisition Underway ------------------------------------------------------ Medtronic plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 5, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 29, 2021, that the company continues to defend itself in a consolidated class action suit involving the acquisition of Covidien PLC. On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic, Inc. Board of Directors at the time as defendants, and alleged that the directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with regard to the then-potential acquisition. On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien acquisition. In September 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were consolidated and in December 2014, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien transaction. On March 20, 2015, the District Court issued an order and opinion granting Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal, and, in January 2016, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in part. On April 19, 2016 the Minnesota Supreme Court granted the Company's petition to review the issue of whether most of the original claims are properly characterized as direct or derivative under Minnesota law. In August 2017, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Minnesota State Court of Appeals, sending the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings, which are ongoing. In April 2020, the District Court issued an order and opinion denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In June 2020, the Minnesota State Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' request to review the District Court's denial of class certification, and in September 2020, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' request to review the Court of Appeals decision. The Company has not recognized an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Medtronic plc develops, manufactures, distributes, and sells device-based medical therapies to hospitals, physicians, clinicians, and patients worldwide. It operates through four segments: Cardiac and Vascular Group, Minimally Invasive Therapies Group, Restorative Therapies Group, and Diabetes Group. The company was founded in 1949 and is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. MIMEDX GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Carpenters Pension Fund Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit headed by Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois is still pending. On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 26, 2018). The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018. Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed its amended complaint against the Company, Michael Senken, Pete Petit, William Taylor, and Cherry Bekaert & Holland (Cashman was dropped as a defendant) on March 30, 2020. The Defendants filed motions to dismiss on May 29, 2020, which remain pending. At this time, 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, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the securities class action described above. MiMedx said, "In the event of an adverse judgment or material settlement with respect to the securities class actions described above, the Company may be required to pay significant damages or settlement costs. Successful claims brought against the Company with respect to the securities class action in excess of its available insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and results of operations." MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based in Marietta, Georgia. MINERVA NEUROSCIENCES: Plaintiffs Seek to Consolidate Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the motions to consolidate the putative securities class action suits filed against the company are pending. On December 8, 2020 and January 11, 2021, purported stockholders of the Company filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled McCoy v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-12176 and Ao v. Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. et al., No. 1:21-cv-10051, respectively, against the Company and the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The complaints are nearly identical and allege that the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements regarding the development of the Company's drug candidate roluperidone purportedly causing losses to investors who acquired the Company's common stock between May 15, 2017 and November 30, 2020. The complaints do not quantify any alleged damages but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of themselves and others who acquired the Company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a result. On February 8, 2021, three putative lead plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead plaintiff. Two of the putative lead plaintiffs withdrew their motions on February 22, 2021. The defendants' response to the complaints is stayed pending consolidation and resolution of the lead plaintiff motions. Minerva 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." Minerva Neurosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of proprietary product candidates to treat patients suffering from central nervous system diseases. The company is based in Waltham, Massachusetts. NATIONAL WESTERN: Baldwin Suit Removed to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Mildred Baldwin, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. National Western Life Insurance Company, Case No. 21PT-CC00022, was removed from the Circuit Court of Pettis County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on April 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-04066-WJE to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. National Western Life -- https://www.nationalwesternlife.com/ -- provides high quality insurance products that meet the financial security needs of well-defined market segments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Peter J Jannace, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gerards@bsjfirm.com peterj@bsjfirm.com - and - John F Garvey, Esq. CAREY DANIE & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 725-7700 Email: jgarvey@careydavis.com - and - Lisa M. La Fornara, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Fax: (317) 636-2593 Email: llafornara@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. TURKE & STRAUSS LLP 613 Williamson Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@turkestrauss.com The Defendant is represented by: Guillermo G. Zorogastua, Esq. POLSINELLI PC - KCMO 900 W. 48th Place Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 753-1000 Fax: (816) 753-1536 Email: gzorogastua@polsinelli.com NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL: Drulias Putative Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Navistar International Corporation (NIC) said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the putative class action suit entitled, Drulias v. Clarke, et al., Case No. 2021-CH-000022, has been dismissed. On November 7, 2020, Navistar, a Delaware corporation, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with TRATON SE, a Societas Europaea (Parent or TRATON), and Dusk Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving company in the Merger as a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of Parent. On January 7, 2021 and February 18, 2021, three substantially similar complaints were filed against NIC and the members of NIC's Board in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by purported stockholders of the Company, captioned Stein v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00013 (D. Del.), LaFrance v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00016 (D. Del.), and Williams v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00225 (D. Del.), respectively. On January 19, 2021, January 21, 2021, and February 11, 2021, substantially similar complaints were filed against NIC and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Anderson v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No 21-cv-00453 (S.D.N.Y), Grinberger v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00561 (S.D.N.Y), Sheridan v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01233 (S.D.N.Y), and Arnold v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01236 (S.D.N.Y), respectively. The Anderson Action also names Parent and Merger Subsidiary as defendants. On January 25, 2021, a substantially similar complaint was filed against NIC and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned Walker v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00398 (E.D.N.Y.). On February 19, 2021, a substantially similar complaint was filed against NIC and the members of the Board in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Baker v. Navistar International Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-cv-00762 (E.D.Pa.). The complaints referenced above allege that the Proxy Statement (defined below) and preliminary versions of the Proxy Statement filed with the SEC on December 22, 2020 and January 21, 2021, were materially incomplete and therefore misleading in certain aspects. On January 20, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed against NIC, the Board, Parent and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, Chancery Division, captioned Drulias v. Clarke, et al., Case No. 2021-CH-000022 (Ill. DuPage Cty. Cir. Ct. Drulias alleges breaches of the fiduciary duties of due care, good faith, loyalty, fair dealing and full disclosure under Delaware law by NIC and the members of the Board, and alleges that Parent and TRATON US, Inc. aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 29, 2021, NIC filed the definitive proxy statement with the SEC relating to the Merger (the "Proxy Statement"). NIC believes the allegations in the Complaints are without merit. However, on February 22, 2021, NIC reached a settlement or a settlement in principle with respect to each of the Complaints. In connection with the settlements and settlements in principle, NIC voluntarily supplemented the Proxy Statement with the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K dated and filed on February 23, 2021 in exchange for a release of all of the claims alleged in the Complaints. The aggregate amount of such settlements are immaterial, and the company expects that the aggregate amount of the definitive settlements for those Complaints that NIC has reached a settlement in principle will also be immaterial. On February 24, 2021, Arnold was dismissed. On February 26, 2021, Stein, LaFrance, Williams, Baker and Drulias were dismissed. On March 2, 2021, Anderson, Grinberger and Sheridan were dismissed. On March 3, 2021, Walker was dismissed. Navistar International Corporation, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells commercial and military trucks, diesel engines, school and commercial buses, and service parts for trucks and diesel engines worldwide. Navistar International Corporation was founded in 1902 and is headquartered in Lisle, Illinois. NEONODE INC: Purported Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------- Neonode Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a purported class action suit with Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA. On September 2, 2020, a putative stockholder of Neonode filed a purported class action lawsuit (Case No. 1:20-cv-01174-UNA) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Neonode, the Board of Directors of Neonode, and the Chief Executive Officer of Neonode for alleged violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, in connection with disclosure of information concerning Proposal 5 and Proposal 6 in the Proxy Statement, and generally containing the same substantive allegations as in the above previously-filed Delaware Court of Chancery action. On October 20, 2020, the plaintiff claimed to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit in the United States District Court. However, on February 5, 2021, the plaintiff made contact again regarding mootness discussions, which are still ongoing. Neonode Inc. develops and licenses user interfaces and optical multi-touch solutions for consumer brands. The Company is focused on licensing its technology to Original Equipment Manufacturers and ("OEMs") and Original Design Manufacturers ("ODMs") who embed their technology into electronic devices. ONTRAK INC: Facing Farhar Purported Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Ontrak, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company is facing a purported securities class action entitled, Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987. On March 3, 2021, a purported securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, entitled Farhar v. Ontrak, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-01987 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 3, 2021). In this action, plaintiff, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Ontrak securities from November 5, 2020 through February 26, 2021, alleges that the Company and certain of its officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b), 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, by intentionally or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that (i) Ontrak's largest customer evaluated Ontrak 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; (ii) as a result, Ontrak's largest customer did not find Ontrak's program to be effective and was reasonably likely to terminate its contract with Ontrak; (iii) because this customer accounted for a significant portion of Ontrak's revenue, loss of the customer would have an outsized impact on Ontrak's financial results; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Ontrak's positive statements about its business, operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. The complaint has not yet been served. Ontrak said, "We believe that the allegations lack merit and intend to defend against this action vigorously." Ontrak, Inc. is incorporated in the State of Delaware on September 29, 2003. Ontrak was founded with a passion for engaging with and helping improve the health and save lives of anyone impacted by behavioral health conditions. The company is a leading Artificial Intelligence ("AI")-powered and telehealth-enabled, virtualized healthcare company, whose mission is to help improve the health and save the lives of as many people as possible. The company is based in Santa Monica, California. REGULUS THERAPEUTICS: Class Suit in California Concluded -------------------------------------------------------- Regulus Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the court entered the final judgment and dismissed the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California with prejudice. On January 31, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed by Baran Polat in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, or District Court, against the company, Paul C. Grint (the company's former Chief Executive Officer), and Joseph P. Hagan (then the company's Chief Operating Officer and currently its President and Chief Executive Officer). The complaint includes claims asserted, on behalf of certain purchasers of our securities, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. In general, the complaint alleges that, between January 21, 2016, and June 27, 2016, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and the prospects for RG-101, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On February 10, 2017, a second putative class action complaint was filed by Li Jin in the District Court against the Company, Mr. Hagan, Dr. Grint, and Timothy Wright, the Company's former Chief Research and Development Officer. The Complaint alleges claims similar to those asserted by Mr. Polat. The actions have been related. On February 17, 2017, the District Court entered an order stating that defendants need not answer, or otherwise respond, until the District Court enters an order appointing, pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the parties then submit a schedule to the District Court for the filing of an amended or consolidated complaint and the timing of defendants' answer or response. On April 3, 2017, two motions for consolidation of the two actions, appointment of lead plaintiff and approval of counsel were filed in the actions. On October 26, 2017, the District Court entered an order consolidating the cases, appointing lead plaintiffs, and appointing lead counsel for lead plaintiffs. On December 22, 2017, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint against the Company, Dr. Grint, Mr. Hagan, and Michael Huang (the company's former Vice President of Clinical Development). The consolidated complaint alleges that between February 17, 2016 and June 12, 2017, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and misleading statements regarding RG-101. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On February 6, 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 23, 2018, plaintiff filed their opposition to the motion and on April 24, 2018, defendants filed their response. On September 5, 2019, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 1, 2019. Subsequent to the filing of the amended complaint, counsel for the parties engaged in negotiations to resolve the case. On November 4, 2019, the parties agreed in principle to settle the case for $0.9 million, with approximately $0.2 million to be paid by us and the balance to be paid by our D&O insurance carrier. On December 11, 2019, the parties entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement, which was amended on February 6, 2020. On February 7, 2020, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On May 27, 2020, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. On October 21, 2020, the court held a hearing regarding approval of the settlement and on October 29, 2020 the court entered its order granting final approval of the settlement. On December 29, 2020, the court entered the final judgment and dismissed the action with prejudice. The consolidated actions were dismissed on December 29, 2020. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. operates within the biopharmaceutical industry. The Company's products aim to treat and prevent hepatitis C infections, cardiovascular, fibrosis, oncology, immuno-inflammatory, and metabolic diseases. Regulas Therapeutics offers its services worldwide. Regulus Therapeutics Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in San Diego, California. REV GROUP: Consolidated Suit Over 2017 IPO Underway --------------------------------------------------- REV Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action related to the company's January 2017 initial public offering (IPO). A consolidated federal putative securities class action and a consolidated state putative securities class action are pending against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. These actions collectively purport to assert claims on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of the Company's common stock in or traceable to its January 2017 IPO, purchasers in its secondary offering of common stock in October 2017, and purchasers from October 10, 2017 through June 7, 2018. The state action also names certain of the underwriters for the Company's IPO or secondary offering as defendants. The federal and state courts each consolidated multiple separate actions pending before them, the first of which was filed on June 8, 2018. The actions have alleged certain violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and, for the federal action, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The consolidated state action is currently stayed in favor of the consolidated federal action. Collectively, the actions seek certification of the putative classes asserted and compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The underwriter defendants have notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to the IPO underwriting agreement regarding the claims asserted with respect to the IPO, and the Company expects the underwriters to do the same in regard to the claims asserted with respect to the October 2017 offering. Two purported derivative actions, which have since been consolidated, were also filed in federal court in Delaware in 2019 against the Company's directors (with the Company as a nominal defendant), premised on allegations similar to those asserted in the consolidated federal securities litigation. The Company and the other defendants intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously. Additional lawsuits may be filed and, at this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the lawsuits, the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with the resolution of the lawsuits, or any potential effect that it may have on the Company or its operations. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. REV Group, Inc. designs, manufactures, and distributes specialty vehicles in the United States, Canada, Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Caribbean, and internationally. It operates through three segments: Fire & Emergency, Commercial, and Recreation. REV Group, Inc. was formerly known as Allied Specialty Vehicles, Inc. and changed its name to REV Group, Inc. in November 2015. The company is headquartered in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Courtney Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Andrew B. Courtney, Peter Fray, Andrea Juncadella, Patrick Young, Omar Alsaedi, Ethan Arellano, Travis Elliott, Jessica Hines, Michelle del Valle, Michael Ridpath, Charles Fellows, Bryan Joyner, Christine Bukowski, Carolyn Collier, Amanda Giuliani, Chastity Woodward, Matt Scime, William Urrutia, Michael D Scalia, Jonathan Diamond, Austin Schaff, Chance Daniels, Taylor Perri, Ryan Heitz, Kevin Sheehan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consol Plaintiffs v. Robinhood Financial LLC; Robinhood Securities, LLC; Citadel LLC doing business as: Citadel Securities; Point72 Asset Management, L.P.; John Does 1-10; Citadel Securities, LLC; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Interactive Brokers, LLC; TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Webull Financial, LLC; Open to the Public Investing, Inc.; Consol Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00234, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Robinhood Financial LLC -- https://robinhood.com/ -- operates as an institutional brokerage company.[BN] The Consol Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael James McMullen, Esq. COHEN & McMULLEN, P.A. 1132 SE 3rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: (954) 523-7774 Email: Michael@floridajusticefirm.com - and - Alexander Cabeceiras, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC One Penn Plaza, Ste. 4905 New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 587-0760 Email: alexc@dereksmithlaw.com - and - Caroline Hope Miller, Esq. DEREK SMITH LAW GROUP, PLLC 1835 Market Street. Suite 2950 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 391-4790 Fax: (215) 893-5288 Email: caroline@dereksmithlaw.com - and - James L. Ferraro, Esq. James Louis Ferraro, Jr., Esq. Mathew Daniel Gutierrez, Esq. Natalia Maria Salas, Esq. Sean A. Byrstyn, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 Miami, FL 33131-3073 Phone: (305) 375-0111 Fax: (305) 379-6222 Email: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jjr@ferrarolaw.com mdg@ferrarolaw.com nms@ferrarolaw.com - and - Luke Thomas Jacobs, Esq. WEIL SNYDER, RAVINDRAN 221 Meridian Ave., Apt 205 Miami Beach, FL 33139 Phone: (402) 650-4356 - and - Marguerite Clare Racher Snyder, Esq. WEIL WUARANTA P.A. 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 372-5352 Email: MSnyder@weilquaranta.net - and - Ronald Peter Weil, Esq. RONALD WEIL PA 200 S Biscayne Boulevard Wachovia Financial Center Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 372-5352 Fax: (305) 372-5355 Email: RWeil@weilquaranta.net - and - Brian William Warwick, Esq. Janet Robards Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Fax: (352) 753-8606 Email: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Erika Roxanne Willis, Esq. Matthew Peterson, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 1101 E. Cumberland Ave., Suite 201H, #105 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Fax: (352) 504-3301 Email: ewillis@varnellandwarwick.com mpeterson@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 337-7992 Fax: (813) 229-8712 Email: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com - and - Chad Andrew Justice, Esq. JUSTICE FOR JUSTICE LLC 1205 N Franklin, Suite 326 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 566-0550 Fax: (813) 566-0770 Email: chad@getjusticeforjustice.com - and - Kevin Scott Hannon, Esq. HANNON LAW FIRM, LLC 1641 Downing Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: (303) 861-8800 - and - Brandon Michael Taaffe, Esq. Jeremy Matthew Halpern, Esq. Michael D. Bressan, Esq. Michael S. Taaffe, Esq. SHUMAKER, LOOP, KENDRICK, LLP 240 South Pineapple Avenue, 10th Floor Sarasota, FL 34236 Phone: (941) 364-2773 Fax: (941) 366-3999 Email: btaaffe@slk-law.com jhalpern@slk-law.com mbressan@shumaker.com mtaaffe@slk-law.com The Consol Defendants are represented by: Christopher Mitchell Hendy, Esq. Bronwyn Fitzgerald Pollock, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Phone: (213) 229-5142 Fax: (213) 625-0248 Email: mhendy@mayerbrown.com bpollock@mayerbrown.com STITCH FIX: Bid to Dismiss California Securities Class Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Stitch Fix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the quarterly period ended January 30, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit filed in the Northern District of California, is pending. On October 11, 2018, October 26, 2018, November 16, 2018, and December 10, 2018, four putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers. The four lawsuits each make the same allegations of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by us and our officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's active client growth and strategy with respect to television advertising between June 2018 and October 2018. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The four lawsuits have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On September 18, 2019, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action lawsuits filed a consolidated complaint for violation of the federal securities laws. On October 28, 2019, the company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 9, 2019, and the company and the other defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on December 30, 2019. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss on September 30, 2020 but allowed the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On November 6, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed his amended complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on December 7, 2020. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2021, and the company filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss on January 22, 2021. Stitch Fix, Inc. operates as an online subscription and personal shopping platform. The Company offers shirts, jackets, sweaters, blazers, leggings, vests, scarfs, jeans, loafers, and boots for men and women. Stitch Fix serves customers in the United States. Stitch Fix, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. TREVENA INC: Settlement Reached in PA Consolidated Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Trevena, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the parties in the consolidated purported class action suit, agreed in principle to a settlement, which is subject to final documentation and approval by the Court. In October and November 2018, the Company and certain current and former officers and directors were sued in three purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. In January 2019, the three lawsuits were consolidated into one action, and on May 29, 2019, the District Court appointed a group of five individual investors as lead plaintiffs. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on August 2, 2019, alleging, among other things, that the Company and two former officers made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including certain statements made relating to the Company's End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and certain statements concerning top-line results from the Company's Phase 3 studies. The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs, and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief. On August 28, 2020, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. On October 2, 2020, the Company and the individual defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint, denying all liability. On February 11, 2021, the parties agreed in principle to a settlement, which is subject to final documentation and approval by the Court. The Company and the individual defendants do not acknowledge any wrongdoing as part of the settlement, and a monetary payment of $8.5 million will be made to the plaintiffs and their counsel, all of which will be funded by the Company's insurance carriers. The Company has recorded the $8.5 million estimated settlement liability and the $8.5 million Trevena, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of treatment options that target and treat diseases affecting the central nervous system. The company was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania. TUPPERWARE BRANDS: Consolidated Class Suit in Florida Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- Tupperware Brands Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 26, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated putative stockholder class action suit pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. In February 2020, putative stockholder class actions were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The actions were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. On July 31, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, which alleges that statements in public filings between January 31, 2018 and February 24, 2020 regarding the Company's disclosure of controls and procedures, as well as the need for an amendment of its credit facility, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock during the potential class period and demand unspecified monetary damages. While the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted on January 25, 2021, the court permitted the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint, which the plaintiff filed on February 16, 2021. Tupperware said, "The Company is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Orlando, Florida-based Tupperware Brands Corporation is a global marketer of household, beauty and personal care products across multiple brands utilizing social selling. Product brands and categories include design-centric preparation, storage and serving solutions for the kitchen and home through the Tupperware brand and beauty and personal care products through the Avroy Shlain, Fuller Cosmetics, NaturCare, Nutrimetics and Nuvo brands. VISALUS INC: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in Wakefield TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants ViSalus, Inc., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, v. VISALUS, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-01857-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Portland. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 2, 2021, the Hon. Judge Michael H. Simon entered an order denying ViSalus's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial. The Court previously ruled that ViSalus waived reliance on the affirmative defense that it obtained prior written consent from class members because, despite knowing that it had sought a Federal Communications Commission waiver, "ViSalus did not plead as an affirmative defense that it obtained written consent for the calls in a manner consistent with the FCC waiver that it sought." The Court has weighed the evidence and . . . does not find that it is against the clear weight of the evidence to find that ViSalus made 1,850,440 prerecorded or automated telemarketing calls to a mobile telephone or residential telephone line of a customer without that customer's prior written consent. The Defendant seek a review of the Court order entered by Judge Simon. The appellate case is captioned as Lori Wakefield v. ViSalus, Inc., Case No. 21-35201, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant ViSalus, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 25, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by April 15, 2021; -- Transcript is due on May 17, 2021; -- Appellant ViSalus, Inc. opening brief is due on June 24, 2021; -- Appellee Lori Wakefield answering brief is due on July 26, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee LORI WAKEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com - and - Gregory Scott Dovel, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 E-mail: greg@dovel.com - and - John Aaron Lawson, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 E-mail: alawson@edelson.com - and - Stephen C. Voorhees, Esq. KILMER VOORHEES & LAURICK, P.C. 732 NW 19th Avenue Portland, OR 97209 Telephone: (503) 224-0055 E-mail: svoorhees@kilmerlaw.com Defendant-Appellant VISALUS, INC., a Nevada corporation, is represented by: Nicholas Hanson Pyle, Esq. Joshua Michio Sasaki, Esq. MILLER NASH GRAHAM & DUNN LLP 111 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 Portland, OR 97204-3699 Telephone: (503) 224-5858 E-mail: nicholas.pyle@millernash.com josh.sasaki@millernash.com - and - Christine Marie Reilly, Esq. Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4237 E-mail: creilly@manatt.com bshatz@manatt.com WAITR HOLDINGS: Bid to Nix Consolidated Welch & Bates Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action suit in Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division, is pending. In September 2019, Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and Jefferies, LLC were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit entitled Walter Welch, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and Jefferies, LLC. The case was filed in the Western District of Louisiana, Lake Charles Division. In the lawsuit, the plaintiff asserts putative class action claims alleging, inter alia, that various defendants made false and misleading statements in securities filings, engaged in fraud, and violated accounting and securities rules. A similar putative class action lawsuit, entitled Kelly Bates, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated vs. Christopher Meaux, David Pringle, Jeff Yurecko, Tilman J. Fertitta, Richard Handler, Waitr Holdings Inc. f/k/a Landcadia Holdings Inc., Jefferies Financial Group, Inc. and Jefferies, LLC, was filed in that same court in November 2019. These two cases were recently consolidated, and an amended complaint was filed in October 2020. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2021. Waitr believes that this lawsuit lacks merit and that it has strong defenses to all of the claims alleged. Waitr intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette, Louisiana. WAITR HOLDINGS: Bobby's Must File Class Cert. Bid by October ------------------------------------------------------------ Waitr Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that the deadline to file a motion for class certification in Bobby's Country Cookin', et al v. Waitr, is October 2021. In April 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a class action complaint filed by certain current and former restaurant partners, captioned Bobby's Country Cookin', et al v. Waitr, which is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, claims for breach of contract, violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment, and seek recovery on behalf of themselves and two separate classes. Based on the current class definitions, as many as 10,000 restaurant partners could be members of the two separate classes that the representative plaintiffs are attempting to certify. Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification is October 2021. Waitr maintains that the underlying allegations and claims lack merit, and that the classes, as pled, are incapable of certification. Waitr intends to vigorously defend the suit. Waitr Holdings Inc. operates an online food ordering and delivery platform, connecting local restaurants with hungry diners in cities across the United States. The company is based in Lafayette, Louisiana. ZYNERBA PHARMA: Agreement to Settle Zygel-Related Suit Reached -------------------------------------------------------------- Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2021, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020, that company and the individual defendants have recently reached an agreement in principle to settle the putative class action suit related to product candidate Zygel ("ZYN002"). On October 23, 2019, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, with an amended complaint filed on March 9, 2020. This action was purportedly brought on behalf of a putative class of Zynerba investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between March 11, 2019 and September 17, 2019. The complaint alleges that Defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions relating to product candidate Zygel ("ZYN002") in alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Specifically, plaintiff claims that Defendants made false statements or failed to disclose that: (i) Zygel was proving unsafe and not well-tolerated in the BELIEVE 1 clinical trial; (ii) that the foregoing created a foreseeable, heightened risk that Zynerba would fail to secure the necessary regulatory approvals for commercializing Zygel for the treatment of developmental and epileptic encephalopathies in children and adolescents, and (iii) as a result the Company's public statements and public filings were materially false and misleading to investors. The Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint was denied on November 25, 2020. The Company and the individual defendants have recently reached an agreement in principle to settle this action that is subject to the preliminary approval and final approval of the court. Zynerba said, "With respect to the foregoing matter, the Company has previously incurred and expensed fees and expenses in an amount less than its insurance policy deductible of $2.0 million. The Company's insurers have undertaken to cover the amount of the settlement payment in excess of the remainder of the insurance policy deductible, if the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Court. As of December 31, 2020, the Company has accrued both the amount of the settlement payment under the agreement in principle, and a corresponding insurance receivable from its insurers." Zynerba Pharmaceuticals, Inc. provides pharmaceutically-produced transdermal cannabinoid therapies for rare and near-rare neuropsychiatric disorders. The company is committed to improving the lives of patients and their families living with severe, chronic health conditions including Fragile X syndrome, or FXS, autism spectrum disorder, or ASD, 22q11.2 deletion syndrome, or 22q, and a heterogeneous group of rare and ultra-rare epilepsies known as developmental and epileptic encephalopathies, or DEE. The company is based in Devon, Pennsylvania. ********* 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 ***