/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210429.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 29, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 80 Headlines ADT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Privacy Violations AEGION CORPORATION: Assad Balks at Omitted New Mountain Merger Info ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Cates Suit Alleges ALLY FINANCIAL: D'Agostino Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling Apps AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline ARS ACCOUNT: Klayton Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly BBBB BONDING: Can't Collect Debts From Bail Co-Signors BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Mirvis Files Suit Over Data Breach BLUE SPARK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BOOKING.COM: German Hotel Association Supports Class Action Lawsuit BUMBLE BEE: 9th Circuit Decertifies Tuna Price-Fixing Classes C-CON SERVICES: Carroll FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Texas CALIFORNIA: Charter Schools File Class Action Over State Defunding CANAAN INC: Faces Denny Suit Over 30% Drop in Share Price CANOO INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline CASTILLO BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Fuentes Suit Says CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuit Mulled Over Crawford Coal Plant Implosion COLORADO: Class Action Mulled Over ID.me Identity Verification COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuit COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: DeForest Sues Over Confusing Debt Letters CONTAINER STORE: Worth Avenue Suit Removed to S.D. Florida CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Debt Letter "Deceptive," Cowan Suit Says CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kirksey Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Files Suit in California Superior Ct. CREDIT SUISSE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action DEARBORN BISTRO: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Johnson Suit Claims DEYOUNG PORK: Faces Suit Over Worker's Unpaid Wages, Sexual Assault EBANG INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Class Claims ELANCO ANIMAL: McDermotts Sue Over Unsafe Flea & Tick Collars ENHANCED RECOVERY: Grogan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida EPIC GAMES: Parent Challenges Motion to Dismiss Class Action EREDI PISANO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says ETHICON INC: Shine Lawyers Files Second Mesh Implant Class Action EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Frederick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois FELDMAN LAW: Intervention in Sullivan Arbitration Proceedings Nixed FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Approves Emissions Class Action Settlement FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims FIRST EAGLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRANCIS FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FRED ALGER: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York GAP INC: Liberto Suit Removed to Middle District of Florida GC SERVICES: Anderson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports GONZO MARKETING: Faces Johnson Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid Overtime HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data HERRON RESIDENCE: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $5.5 Million HIGHMARK INC: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Tenants Win Suit Over Utility Surcharges I LOVE THIS BAR: Class in Young FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified INTERTEK USA: Faces Kirksey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime JAMES FRANCO: Faces New Claims Amid Sexual Assault Class Action JDD INVESTMENT: Avila Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Overtime JELD-WEN INC: 5th Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed JUUL LABS: Faces Jenkins Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing KADMON HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 2 Deadline KADMON HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline KADMON HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline KCI USA: Case Progression Deadlines in Palmer Suit Reinstated KRAFT HEINZ: Huber Sues Over Pizza Bagels' Deceptive Front Labels LA CARRETA: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Norovirus Outbreak LASIK MD: Quebec Court Tosses Class Action Lawsuit LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline LENOVO US: Loses Bid to Split Class, Merits Discovery in Singh Suit LIMANI 51: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gjorevski Suit Alleges LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 17 Deadline MARY SCHIMDT CAMPBELL: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California MATADOR PRODUCTION: Bragg Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice MDL 2670: EPPs Can't File Overlength Brief in Antitrust Suit MDL 30051: Belviq-Related Suit Moved to US Judicial Panel MELTON TRUCK: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma MERCEDES-BENZ: Hagens Berman Files Defeat Device Class Action MIDLAND CREDIT: Bagby Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters MIDLAND CREDIT: White Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan MLC NOMINEES: NAB MySuper Class Action Moved to Federal Court MULTIPLAN CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action NAVISTAR INC: King & Spalding Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y. NEW YORK, NY: Open Streets Opponents Mull Class Action Lawsuit NEW YORK, NY: Taxi Drivers File Class Suit Over Medallion Prices NOKIA CORP: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit NYU HOSPITALS: Appeals Denial of Summary Judgment Bid ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline OUTBACK CARE: Faces Wrenn Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in M.D. Ga. OZARK MOUNTAIN: Fails to Properly Pay Poultry Workers, Johnson Says PHILIP MORRIS: Craig Sues Over Harmful Effects of Cigarettes PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Silberman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York PRAIRIE FARMS: Wach Sues Over Ice Cream's Deceptive Labels PRETIUM RESOURCES: Court Weighs Secondary Market Liability Claim QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Drips' Bid to Quash Moved to D. Massachusetts R&D TECHNICAL: Galvan Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline ROGERS WIRELESS: Customers to Get Early Termination Fee Refunds ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Jane Doe Sues Over Breach of Patient Data RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces Pueschel FCPA Suit in Massachusetts State Ct. SCHOLAR ROCK: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline SIMPLY WHOLESOME: Lyons Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Suit Removed to M.D. Florida SLOAN VALVE: Popplewell's FLSA Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline SOS LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline STAFFMARK GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Ruiz Suit Alleges STAR MULTI: Sirmons et al. Seek Homecare Providers' Unpaid Overtime STATER BROS: Ross Suit Removed to C.D. California SUFFOLK, NY: Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Class Action SUTTER HEALTH: California AG Seeks Slice of Antitrust Settlement SYMMETRY ENERGY: Face Certified Roses Suit Over Unfair Gas Charges TATA CONSULTANCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Alcala Claims TCM HEALTH: Yuan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages TEXAS: Order on Hegar's Plea to Jurisdiction in Best Buy Affirmed TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bradley Sues Over Mislabeled Flushable Wipes TRAVELERS HOME: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Manatt Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action UNITED STATES: Colorado Woman Joins Title IX Class Action Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Eastern University Students Join Class Action Suit UNITED STATES: Immigration Detainees' Class Action v. ICE Settled VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over FLSA Violations VALVE CORP: CD Projekt RED Removed From Steam Antitrust Lawsuit VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Benjamin Sues Over 90.5% Drop of Stock Price VMK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline WASTE CONNECTIONS: Judge Dismisses Nuisance Class Action WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Upholds Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit WELLS FARGO: Stoff Suit Removed to S.D. California WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Files Suit in California Superior Ct. WESTROCK SERVICES: Savino Sues Over Unpaid OT, BIPA Non-Compliance WORKHORSE GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline WORKHORSE GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: NRO RICO Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ZOETIS INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discuses Class Action Ruling [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Continue to Rise [*] Bailey's Travel Urges Agents to Join Insurance Class Action [*] Employers Can't Stop Workers to Join Class Suit Under PRO Act ********* ADT: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Privacy Violations -------------------------------------------------------- Steve Karantzoulidis, writing for CEPro, reports that ADT has been hit with a class action lawsuit over a former employee that was caught accessing the video feeds of hundreds of customers. In April 2020, Telesforo Aviles was fired after ADT learned that he added his personal email address to customers' accounts during service visits, which gave him varying levels of access to their systems through the company's mobile app, including the video streams of security cameras. He pleaded guilty last month. Randy Doty is filing a lawsuit against the home security company, "based on its intentional and negligent tortious acts in providing security services to its customers with remote-viewing capabilities" and Aviles, for "using those services to spy on Plaintiff and others who resided in homes with ADT security systems." The lawsuit targets ADT's Pulse platform, stating, "ADT failed to provide the security services its customers paid for by leaving large vulnerabilities in the ADT Pulse application and, as a result, compromised the safety and security of its customers' homes and family members." It also brings up the home security company's marketing messages, saying "ADT bragged that it was leading the industry in establishing ‘best practices' for the protection of consumer privacy, one of which was strict standards for access to data." The lawsuit says ADT is responsible for seven causes of action, including negligence; intrusion upon seclusion; negligent hiring, supervision and retention; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and privacy monitoring. The plaintiff seeks class and sub-class certification and for the plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class and sub-class; declaratory and injunctive relief; an award for damages, costs, and fees; pre and post judgment interest; and other relief. [GN] AEGION CORPORATION: Assad Balks at Omitted New Mountain Merger Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE ASSAD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AEGION CORPORATION, STEPHEN P. CORTINOVIS, STEPHANIE A. CUSKLEY, WALTER J. GALVIN, RHONDA GERMANY BALLINTYN, CHARLES R. GORDON, M. RICHARD SMITH, and PHILLIP D. WRIGHT, Defendants, Case No. 2021-0349 (Del. Ch., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, the Defendants filed a materially misleading proxy statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the proposed acquisition of Aegion by New Mountain Capital, LLC. Specifically, the proxy statement failed to disclose material information: (1) concerning the don't ask, don't waive (DADW) standstill restrictions in the confidentiality agreements entered into with potential bidders during a confidential auction process conducted by Aegion's board of directors in September 2019, and (2) concerning the potential conflicts of interest faced by Aegion's insiders. This omitted information, if disclosed, would significantly alter the total mix of information available to Aegion stockholders and directly inform their decision to vote in favor of or against the transaction with New Mountain, says the suit. Aegion Corporation is an engineering services company, headquartered in Chesterfield, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 803-4600 - and – Richard A. Acocelli, Esq. Michael A. Rogovin, Esq. Kelly K. Moran, Esq. Alexandra E. Eisig, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 682-3025 ALLIANCE COAL: Underpays Coal Miners, Cates Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- RICKEY CATES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE COAL, LLC, ALLIANCE RESOURCE PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCE OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P., ALLIANCE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GP, LLC, HAMILTON COUNTY COAL, LLC, and WHITE COUNTY COAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00377 (S.D. Ill., April 9, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendants seeking all available remedies for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a coal miner from approximately 2010 until February 2020. The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated coal miners routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants did not compensate them for all of the time that they spent performing work, including work performed both before and after their regularly scheduled shifts which is an integral and indispensable part of their principal work activities. In addition, the Defendants failed to include the non-discretionary bonuses in their coal miners' regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime compensation under the FLSA. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated coal miners were not paid proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff asserts. Moreover, the Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate records of the actual hours that the Plaintiff and Coal Miners worked each workday and the total hours worked each workweek. The Plaintiff seeks back pay damages, including unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread of hours payments and unpaid wages, as well as liquidated damages, punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Corporate Defendants operate seven underground mining complexes in West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Maryland. Each of the Defendants are joint employers of the Coal Miners, and their operations are interrelated and share common management. The Parent Defendants ARLP, AROP, and Alliance jointly controlled and directed the employment policies and practices, including the illegal pay practices of their subsidiaries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 111 W. Washington St., Suite 1240 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com - and – Mark N. Foster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC P.O. Box 869 Madisonville, KY 42431 Tel: (270) 213-1303 E-mail: Mfoster@MarkNFoster.com - and – Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market St., Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4620 E-mail: scarson@bm.net crodriguez@bm.net - and – Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Krysten L. Connon, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston St., Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 Fax: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: ssb@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com kconnon@llrlaw.com - and – Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Liberato Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 3 Terry Drive, Suite 205 Newtown, PA 18940 Tel: (215) 867-2399 Fax: (267) 685-0676 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and – John R. Kleinschmidt, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN R. KLEINSCHMIDT III, PLLC P.O. Box 1746 Lexington, KY 40588 Tel: (859) 866-3097 E-mail: john@employmentlawky.com ALLY FINANCIAL: D'Agostino Sues Over Stock Market Manipulation -------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN D'AGOSTINO; and JANELLE BURCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ALPACA SECURITIES LLC, CASH APP INVESTING LLC, SQUARE INC., DOUGH LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, ETRADE SECURITIES LLC, ETRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, ETRADE FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, LLC, ETORO USA SECURITIES, INC., FREETRADE, LTD., INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, M1 FINANCE, LLC, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INVESTING, INC., ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, IG GROUP HOLDINGS PLC, TASTYWORKS, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC., FF TRADE REPUBLIC GROWTH, LLC, TRADING 212 LTD., TRADING 212 UK LTD., WEBULL FINANCIAL LLC, FUMI HOLDINGS, INC., STASH FINANCIAL, INC., CITADEL ENTERPRISE AMERICAS, LLC, CITADEL SECURITIES LLC, MELVIN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP, SEQUOIA CAPITAL OPERATIONS LLC, APEX CLEARING CORPORATION, and THE DEPOSITORY TRUST & CLEARING CORPORATION, Defendants, Case 1:21-cv-21458-DPG (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2021) alleges violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that evidence of the Defendants' collusion began after the stock market closed on January 27, 2021, when after-hours trading revealed suspicious, coordinated trading by the Defendants on the Relevant Securities. Allegedly, the Defendants' short trading in the Relevant Securities before the market opened on January 28, 2021 was counterintuitive. Absent an agreement to drive down prices for the Relevant Securities, it would not have been in the Defendants' economic best interest to continue or expand short selling the Relevant Securities, yet, prior to market open on January 28, institutional investors took more short positions, seemingly anticipating an end to the short squeeze. While it is likely that the Fund Defendants engaged in the after-hours short selling in an effort to recoup their losses from the short squeeze, there was nothing that would have supported this action. In fact, discussions by retail investors on online forums indicated that the short squeeze was not coming to an end as retail investors spoke of expanding their positions in the Relevant Securities. Popularity in the short squeeze also brought new retail investors who were interested in purchasing the Relevant Securities, the suit says. Allegedly, the Defendants knowingly entered into an illegal conspiracy to affect the market prices of the Relevant Securities. The Clearinghouse and Fund Defendants pressured the Brokerage Defendants to restrict trading of the Relevant Securities by retail investors. The conspiracy prevented retail investors from fairly participating in the stock market with respect to the Relevant Securities while Defendant were able to exert control and drive the prices of the Relevant Securities down. The conspiracy deceived retail investors into believing that they could fairly trade the Relevant Securities through the Brokerage Defendants until the Defendants restricted trading by retail investors for their own gain, added the suit. Throughout the conspiracy, the Defendants made misstatements about their involvement in the conspiracy, including how and why trading restrictions were being implemented, in order to deceive retail investors and profit to the detriment of retail investors. Ally Financial Inc. operates as a financial holding company. The Company offers automotive financial services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Montoya, Esq. COLSON HICKS EIDSON 255 Alhambra Circle, PH Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 476-7400 Facsimile: (305) 476-7444 E-mail: patrick@colson.com eservice@colson.com -and- Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Austin B. Cohen, Esq. Keith J. Verrier, Esq. Nicholas J. Elia, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: dlevin@lfsblaw.com acohen@lfsblaw.com kverrier@lfsblaw.com nelia@lfsblaw.com -and- Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES 707 Grant Street, Suite 125 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 AMDOCS LIMITED: Kahn Swick Reminds Investors of June 8 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until June 8, 2021 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Amdocs Limited (NasdaqGS: DOX), if they purchased the Company's shares between December 13, 2016 and March 30, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Amdocs and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-dox/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by June 8, 2021. About the Lawsuit Amdocs and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On March 31, 2021, pre-market, Jehoshaphat Research reported a series of allegations against the Company including that it overstated its profits based on steady parent profits despite declining subsidiary profits; a pattern of resignations by reputable auditors replaced by "scandal-plagued or tiny shops"; that the Company "window-dressed" its balance sheets to keep its large borrowing a secret, specifically by timing its debt payment and reborrowing to appear debt-free; that the Company was losing AT&T as a customer, and other assertions. On this news, shares of Amdocs plummeted $9.19 per share, or 11.58%, to close at $70.15 per share on March 31, 2021. The case is Marn v. Amdocs Limited, et al., No. 21-cv-03078. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients – including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors – in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contacts: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illegal Gambling Apps ------------------------------------------------------------- Madhukumar Warrier, writing for Benzinga, reports that Apple Inc. has been hit with a class-action lawsuit that accuses the tech giant of profiting from illegal gambling apps on the App Store, AppleInsider reported on April 6. What Happened: The lawsuit, filed on behalf of plaintiffs Joshua McDonald and Michael Helsel, states that Apple has profited from illegal gambling games developed by DoubleU Games Co. It alleges that the apps constitute illegal gambling pursuant to various state laws. Apple is reportedly accused of operating as an "unlicensed casino" by selling and distributing several free-to-play casino games, which use in-game currency like "coins" or "chips" in lieu of actual money. The lawsuit notes that users will be prompted to use the actual currency to play the game when they ultimately run out of coins or chips. According to the complaint, paying money in a game for a chance to win more playing time violates the anti-gambling laws of 25 states. The lawsuit is seeking class-action status in all those states, as per the report. The lawsuit is demanding a jury trial and asking for an injunction prohibiting Apple from taking part in the allegedly illegal action. It also seeks statutory damages and other costs. See Also: Tim Cook Says He Has 'Great Admiration And Respect' For Tesla As He Drops Hints On Apple Car Why It Matters: This is not the first time that Apple has been hit with a lawsuit alleging it benefits from illegal gambling apps. In October 2020, a woman sued Apple alleging that dree-to-play with in-game currency games on the App Store constitute illegal gambling, according to another report by AppleInsider. Bloomberg reported in August 2018 that Apple removed thousands of gambling apps from its Chinese store after the state-run China Central Television accused the company of being slow to clean up illegal content. It was reported in July last year that Apple saw more than 2,500 games removed from the App Store in China in the first week of July. [GN] AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of April 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: AQST) between December 2, 2019 and September 25, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important April 30, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Aquestive securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aquestive class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) data included in the Libervant Buccal Film for the management of seizure clusters ("Libervant") New Drug Application ("NDA") submission showed a lower drug exposure level than desired for certain weight groups; (2) the foregoing significantly decreased the Libervant NDA's approval prospects; (3) as a result, it was foreseeable that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would not approve the Libervant NDA in its current form; and (4) as a result, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Aquestive class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2047.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ARS ACCOUNT: Klayton Files FDCPA Suit in District of New Jersey --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARS Account Resolution, et al. The case is styled as Joan Klayton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ARS Account Resolution, Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-10053-MAS-ZNQ (D.N.J., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ARS Account Resolution -- https://www.arspayment.com/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: (973) 227-5900 Fax: (973) 244-0019 Email: jkj@legaljones.com ATHENEX INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Athenex, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-00413, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquire Athenex common stock between August 7, 2019 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is brought on behalf of the Class for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. If you are a shareholder who purchased Athenex securities during the Class Period, you have until May 3, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Athenex is a "global clinical stage biopharmaceutical company dedicated to becoming a leader in the discovery, development, and commercialization of next generation drugs for the treatment of cancer." Athenex is "organized around three platforms, including an Oncology Innovation Platform, a Commercial Platform, and a Global Supply Chain Platform." One of the Company's main drug candidates is an oral paclitaxel and encequidar for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. On August 7, 2019, Athenex announced topline data showing that oral paclitaxel and encequidar met the primary efficacy endpoint with statistically significant improvement over IV paclitaxel in a Phase 3 pivotal study in metastatic breast cancer. In this release, the Company stated that it intended to seek a pre-New Drug Application ("NDA") meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and would "be preparing our NDA submission as soon as possible." Over the next several months, Defendants continued to laud their Phase 3 study of oral paclitaxel plus encequidar. On September 1, 2020, the Company announced that the FDA had accepted for filing Athenex's NDA for Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar in metastatic breast cancer with priority review. In this release, Athenex announced that the FDA had set a target action date of February 28, 2021 for the Company's NDA, and that "the FDA has communicated that it is not currently planning to hold an advisory committee meeting to discuss the application." Then, on December 9, 2020, Athenex announced that it had presented updated Phase 3 data on survival and tolerability associated with Oral Paclitaxel and Encequidar in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The Company announced that it had presented this Phase 3 data at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, and that the data "demonstrat[ed] clinical benefits in efficacy and tolerability of oral paclitaxel versus IVP in patents with metastatic breast cancer . . . . The findings further support the superiority of increased ORR [objective response rate] observed with oral paclitaxel." The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) the data included in the Oral Paclitaxel plus Encequidar NDA presented a safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae; (ii) the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19 conducted by BICR; (iii) the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR; (iv) that the Company's Phase 3 study that was used to file the NDA was inadequate and not well-conducted in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the U.S. population, such that the FDA would recommend a new such clinical trial; (v) as a result, it was foreseeable that the FDA would not approve the Company's NDA in its current form; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Before the markets opened on March 1, 2021, Athenex issued a press release entitled "Athenex Receives FDA Complete Response Letter for Oral Paclitaxel Plus Encequidar for the Treatment of Metastatic Breast Cancer." In this release, Athenex noted that the "FDA Issues a CRL to indicate that the review cycle for an application is complete and that the application is not ready for approval in its present form." This release further provided that "[i]n the CRL, the FDA indicated its concern of safety risk to patients in terms of an increase in neutropenia-related sequalae on the Oral Paclitaxel arm compared with the IV paclitaxel arm." In this March 1, 2021 press release, Athenex further stated that the "FDA also expressed concerns regarding the uncertainty over the results of the primary endpoint of objective response rate (ORR) at week 19 conducted by blinded independent centra review (BICR). The [FDA] stated that the BICR reconciliation and re-read process may have introduced unmeasured bias and influence on the BICR." Last, in this release, Athenex wrote that the FDA "recommended that Athenex conduct a new adequate and well-conducted clinical trial in a patient population with metastatic breast cancer representative of the population of the U.S. The [FDA] determined that additional risk mitigation strategies to improve toxicity, which may involve dose optimization and / or exclusion of patients deemed to be at a higher risk of toxicity, are required to support potential approval of the NDA." On this news, the price of Athenex's shares plummeted from their February 26, 2021 closing price of $12.10 per share to a March 1, 2021 close of just $5.46 each. This represents a one-day drop of approximately 55%, representing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost market capitalization. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN] BAYER CROPSCIENCE: Faces Suit Over Crop Chemicals Market Monopoly ----------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH BECK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP, BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., CORTEVA, INC., CARGILL INCORPORATED, BASF CORPORATION, SYNGENTA CORPORATION, WINFIELD SOLUTIONS, LLC, UNIVAR SOLUTIONS, INC., FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES LTD., CHS INC., NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC., GROWMARK INC., GROWMARK FS, LLC, SIMPLOT AB RETAIL SUB, INC., and TENKOZ, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00996 (D. Minn., April 15, 2021) is an action arising from an unlawful agreement among the Defendants to artificially increase and fix the prices of seeds and crop protection chemicals such as fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides ("Crop Inputs") used by farmers. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants have established a secretive distribution process that keeps Crop Inputs prices inflated at supracompetitive levels and, in furtherance of their conspiracy, denies farmers access to relevant market information, including transparent pricing terms that would allow comparison shopping and better-informed purchasing decisions and information about seed relabeling practices that would enable farmers to know if they are buying newly developed seeds or identical seeds repackaged under a new brand name and sold for a higher price. Beginning early as 2014, new online Crop Inputs sales platforms launched and offered pricing comparison tools to allow farmers to view what other farmers were paying for the same Crop Inputs, increasing price transparency. These online sales platforms, including Farmers Business Network ("FBN") and AgVend Inc., became successful with farmers. Viewing this success, the Defendants allegedly conspired and coordinated to boycott these online Crop Inputs sales platforms because of the threat they posed to the Defendants' market position and price control. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' anticompetitive conduct, the Defendants' have maintained supracompetitive prices for Crop Inputs by denying farmers access to accurate pricing information and have injured farmers by forcing farmers to accept opaque price increases that drastically outweigh any increase in crop yields or market prices, added the suit. Bayer Cropscience LP operates as a crop science company. The Company offers fungicides, harvest aids, herbicides, insecticides, traits, seed, and seed treatments. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael R. Cashman, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. Nathan D. Prosser, Esq. HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC 8050 West 78th Street Edina, MN 55439 Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Facsimile: (952) 941-2337 E-mail: mcashman@hjlawfirm.com aregan@hjlawfirm.com nprosser@hjlawfirm.com -and- Drew R. Ball, Esq. BALL & McCANN, P.C. 161 North Clark Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (872) 205-6556 E-mail: Drew@BallMcCannLaw.com Steve@BallMcCannLaw.com BBBB BONDING: Can't Collect Debts From Bail Co-Signors ------------------------------------------------------ Joe Dworetzky, writing for PleasantonWeekly.com, reports that an Alameda County Superior Court judge on April 8 barred BBBB Bonding Company, doing business under the colorful name Bad Boys Bail Bonds, from trying to collect debts from bail bond co-signors who were not given proper notice under California's Unfair Competition Law. The preliminary injunction, entered in class-action litigation brought in response to a routine collection action, prevents Bad Boys' debt-collection efforts against co-signors in the class while the litigation is pending. The case arose from an incident in June of 2018 when Kiara Caldwell, identified in court papers as a privately employed security guard living in Sacramento, allegedly received a call from a representative of Bad Boys who said that a friend of hers had been arrested and "needed to be bailed out of jail." Bad Boys, a bail bond company based in San Jose, also maintains an office in Oakland, and Caldwell went there to see if she could help. According to the complaint, she was told that her friend could be released if Caldwell put up $500 and signed some paperwork. The meeting lasted only 15 minutes, and according to the complaint, "much of that time consisted of Ms. Caldwell going to an ATM to withdraw cash, as the Bad Boys representative refused to accept Ms. Caldwell's $500 payment via debit card." What's local journalism worth to you? Support PleasantonWeekly.com for as little as $5/month. Caldwell paid the $500 and signed several agreements. One agreement was a premium finance agreement. The bail amount set in the friend's case was $50,000. Bad Boys required 10% -- or $5,000 -- of that amount in order to stand responsible for the full bail amount. However, because Caldwell only provided $500 cash, Bad Boys required an agreement for the payment of the remaining $4,500 over time. The paperwork also included an "Indemnity Agreement" -- a personal guarantee -- whereby Caldwell became liable for $4,500 as well as the full amount of the bail -- $50,000 in this case -- if her friend did not appear in court or pay herself. According to the filing, "entire interaction with Bad Boys was rushed and pressured. Ms. Caldwell was simply told where to sign or initial, with the Bad Boys representative offering no explanation of the particular terms of the agreements." The complaint says that Bad Boys did not tell Caldwell that she would be responsible for paying the $4,500 and that she would have to start making monthly installment payments shortly. Bad Boys also allegedly did not tell her that those amounts were non-refundable. The California Unfair Competition Law includes a variety of consumer protections. One of them requires that when a person co-signs a consumer credit contract (and isn't receiving the money or property being provided themselves), he or she is entitled to a so-called "1799.91 notice." The 1799.91 notice has to explicitly advise the co-signor, among other things, that "You are being asked to guarantee this debt. Think carefully before you do. If the borrower doesn't pay the debt, you will have to. Be sure you can afford to pay if you have to, and that you want to accept this responsibility." The notice further must provide "The creditor can collect this debt from you without first trying to collect from the borrower. The creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower, such as suing you, garnishing your wages, etc." Bad Boys did not provide a 1799.91 notice to Caldwell. The filing states "on information and belief" that Bad Boys has never provided such notice to any co-signor in connection with its bail bonds. Most Viewed Stories -- Proposed Niles Canyon Trail would link Sunol and Fremont -- Pleasanton woman accused of charging up credit cards stolen from older residents -- Guest Opinion: Understanding the Tri-Valley's water supply -- Livermore: Coroner IDs man killed in rollover down I-580 embankment -- Police identify suspect, motive still unknown for neighborhood gunfire Information and belief is a legal phrase that indicates that while the person does not have direct knowledge of the fact, he or she believes it to be true based on all the information he or she has. The 1799.91 notice seeks to prevent hasty or thoughtless commitments made by a consumer on behalf of another person, particularly a friend or family member. While the statute provides a wide array of consumer contracts, according to Caldwell's lawyers, "it's especially important in this in this context because Bad Boys is dealing with people at one of the worst moments of their lives. They're dealing with people . . . who have a relative or a loved one who's in jail and they desperately need to get this person out..." Shortly after signing the papers, Caldwell was contacted by Bad Boys and was told that she had to make monthly payments on the $4,500 bail premium. The complaint alleges that: "Bad Boys began harassing Ms. Caldwell for installment payments. Bad Boys called Ms. Caldwell's personal phone repeatedly . . . When Ms. Caldwell began declining Bad Boys' calls, Bad Boys began calling from blocked phone numbers to disguise the identity of the caller." The collection efforts did not stop even when Caldwell changed her phone number. Bad Boys allegedly called Caldwell's mother, and finally, in October 2018, Bad Boys sued Caldwell. Bad Boys routinely files collection actions against co-signors that fail to pay, according to Caldwell's lawyers, and in most of those cases Bad Boys get judgment by default. In this case, Bad Boys got something very different. Keker Van Nest and Peters is a well-known San Francisco commercial litigation firm. Several of its lawyers, along with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, entered appearances in the case on behalf of Caldwell. Saying that Bad Boys' acts and practices "are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, substantially injurious to California consumers, and offend California public policy," they filed an unusual class action "cross claim" against Bad Boys. The filing asserted that the Bad Boys had failed to give co-signors the 1799.91 notice and therefore was not entitled to collect, not just against Caldwell, but against any member of the class who had not been given the notice. Jay Rapaport, one of the Keker lawyers involved with the case, estimated that the class was likely more than a thousand people. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Brad Seligman, in an order entered on April 8, determined that the statute was applicable to bail bond agreements, that Caldwell should have been given a 1799.91 notice, and therefore Caldwell had shown a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits" of her claim. The judge also found that Caldwell and others in the class had been "victimized" by not getting the notice. The injunction prevents Bad Boys from filing suits or otherwise trying to collect against co-signors on credit bail agreements if they were not given the required notice. The judge stayed his order for 15 days. The court did not explain why it stayed its ruling, but Rapaport said, "I would imagine that the court did so to give Bad Boys an opportunity to appeal and to seek a stay from the court of appeal." Niall Roberts, another of the Keker lawyers on the case, said the ruling "should be a wakeup call for the bail bond industry. The bail bond industry has been operating like they're above the law for decades now." Even though California voters in 2020 rejected a Proposition to eliminate cash bail throughout the state, Roberts said, "people are finally waking up to the inequities of the cash bail system. They're finally waking up to the inequitable ways that these bail bond companies work and make money from low income people in particular. And I think people are finally ready to fight back." [GN] BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Mirvis Files Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------ ALEXANDER MIRVIS, BETTY BUTLER and LAINIE FROEHLICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY, INC. and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY (a/k/a GEICO), Case No. 1:21-cv-02210-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y., April 21, 2021) arises from Defendants' failure to safeguard the confidential information of millions of current and former GEICO customers. The confidential information stolen appears to be information contained on plaintiffs' customers' driver's license numbers and others similarly situated. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs were policyholders of insurance written by GEICO. In the course of purchasing insurance, Plaintiffs were required to provide certain personal and financial information to GEICO, including name, address, Social Security number, vehicle information, and driver's license number. On April 9, 2021, Defendant GEICO advised Plaintiffs by letter that personal information illegally obtained from other sources had been used to obtain unauthorized access to their driver's license numbers through the online sales system on GEICO's website, and that said information could be used to fraudulently apply for unemployment benefits in such policyholders' names ("Data Breach"). The information accessed appears to have been the plaintiffs' driver's licenses, drivers' license number, legal names, addresses, etc. GEICO has failed to maintain the confidentiality of Personal Identifiable Information (PII), failed to prevent cybercriminals from access and use of PII, failed to avoid accidental loss, disclosure, or unauthorized access to PII, failed to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of PII, and failed to provide security measures consistent with industry standards for the protection of PII, of its current and former policyholders, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Alexander Mirvis is an individual GEICO policyholder residing in the County of Kings, State of New York. Plaintiff Betty Butler is an individual GEICO policyholder residing in the County of Queens, State of New York. Plaintiff Lainie Froehlich is an individual GEICO policyholder residing in the County of Suffolk, State of New York. GEICO is an insurance company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Berkshire, authorized to conduct business in the State of New York, which conducts business within the State of New York and within this District, with its headquarters located in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Berkshire is a domestic business corporation, organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, authorized to conduct business in the State of New York, which conducts business within the State of New York, headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip M. Heines, Esq. HELD & HINES, L.L.P. 2004 Ralph Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 531-9700 E-mail: phines@heldhines.com BLUE SPARK: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Spark Capital Advisors LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Blue Spark Capital Advisors LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03605-PAE (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Blue Spark Capital Advisors -- https://www.bluesparkfinancial.com/ -- is a fee-only Registered Investment Advisory and financial planning firm based in New York City and the Berkshires.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal BOOKING.COM: German Hotel Association Supports Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hospitalitynet reports that The German Hotel Association (IHA) supports a class-action lawsuit brought by around 2,000 hotels against Booking.com at the Berlin Regional Court. The association justifies its commitment to help hoteliers to their rights in court. Since 2004 at the latest, the booking portal has applied best-price clauses with which it prohibited affiliated hotels from offering rooms at lower rates through any other distribution channel. With these clauses, Booking.com shielded its business model against any competition in violation of antitrust law, which ultimately allowed the company to collect booking commissions of up to 50% of the room rate from hoteliers. Settlement Negotiations Failed Hoteliers were overcharged and harmed by the best price clauses. The German Hotel Association is now supporting around 2,000 hotels that have joined its "daBeisein" initiative to enforce their claim for compensation in court. "After several months of settlement negotiations that were actually constructive, Booking.com surprisingly left the negotiating table at the end of October last year and arbitrarily sued 66 hotels participating in the initiative in a Dutch court in Amsterdam for 'negative determination of its liability.' This left the remaining 2,000 hotels with no other option than to now file a class action suit themselves with the Berlin Regional Court," Otto Lindner, as IHA Chairman, explains the procedure. In 2013, the Federal Cartel Office had initiated antitrust proceedings against Booking.com following a complaint by the German Hotel Association due to the use of best price clauses in violation of antitrust law. After both the Federal Cartel Office and the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court left no doubt in the parallel case of HRS that the best price clauses were incompatible with German and European antitrust law, the booking portal ultimately removed the best price clauses from its terms and conditions in Germany in 2015. [GN] BUMBLE BEE: 9th Circuit Decertifies Tuna Price-Fixing Classes ------------------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that antitrust class action plaintiffs won a battle on April 6 when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Olean Wholesale Grocery Co-op Inc v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC that three classes of packaged tuna fish purchasers were entitled to rely on their statistical model to establish that common issues predominated in their claims against the tuna companies. But plaintiffs lost the war. The 9th Circuit panel -- Judges Andrew Kleinfeld, Andrew Hurwitz and Patrick Bumatay -- decertified the three tuna purchaser classes suing Bumble Bee, StarKist Co, Chicken of the Sea International and other tuna packagers, concluding that U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino abused her discretion by failing to pick between the two sides' different statistical models on classwide injury. The two models offered wildly different hypotheses on the percentage of class members who were affected by the alleged price fixing: Plaintiffs contended that nearly 95% of tuna purchasers had suffered an antitrust injury, but defendants said nearly 30% were uninjured. The 9th Circuit held that Sammartino should not have certified the class without resolving that discrepancy. Even more significantly, the 9th Circuit staked out a clear position on the vexatious issue of class certification and uninjured class members. The appeals court explicitly held that trial judges may not certify classes that contain more than a minimal number of uninjured class members. The 9th Circuit cited similar rulings from other federal circuits in antitrust class actions, including the D.C. Circuit in 2019's In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, which said the "outer limit" is 5% to 6%. In the 1st Circuit's 2018 decision in In re Asacol, the appeals court overturned certification of a class in which 10% of class members were potentially uninjured. The 9th Circuit's tuna ruling did not set a bright-line standard for an acceptable percentage of uninjured class members, but I'm sure the ruling will nevertheless empower class action defendants, especially in antitrust cases that rely on statistical modeling to show the impact of price fixing, to argue that purchasers can't be certified as a class because not all of them were injured. (It's probably not a coincidence that the 1st, 9th and D.C. Circuit rulings on class certification and uninjured class members have all occurred in antitrust cases, in which plaintiffs are specifically required to prove antitrust injury in their pleadings.) Bumatay, who wrote the opinion, said the threshold percentage "must be de minimus." And if defendants are right that more than a quarter of the purchasers in the class were not injured, the opinion said, that's clearly more than a minimal number. "If 28% of the class were uninjured," the 9th Circuit concluded, "common questions of law or fact would not be shared by substantially all the class members, nor would they prevail in strength or pervasiveness over individual questions." In a potentially ominous footnote for class action plaintiffs, the 9th Circuit added that the presence of uninjured plaintiffs in certified classes "also raises serious standing implications under Article III" of the Constitution. "We are skeptical," Bumatay wrote, that Article III permits certification of a class that includes "countless" unnamed class members who were not injured. But the 9th Circuit said it did not have to reach questions about constitutional standing because plaintiffs' could not satisfy the class action rules. Only Kleinfeld and Bumatay joined in the 9th Circuit's conclusion that classes with more than a minimal percentage of uninjured class members cannot be certified. In a dissent, Hurwitz said the majority had effectively breached standard procedure to add a new provision to Rule 23. "We should not legislate from the appellate bench based on our personal concerns with the class action device," Hurwitz wrote. "Under the (class action) rule as currently written, we should instead leave fact-based decisions on predominance and case management to the sound discretion of the district courts." I emailed queries on the significance of the decision to the three plaintiffs lawyers who argued for tuna purchasers at the 9th Circuit: Christopher Lebsock of Hausfeld; Jonathan Cuneo of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca; and Thomas Burt of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz. None of them got back to me. Scott Nelson of Public Citizen, who filed an amicus brief in the case, said by email that the majority's opinion is inconsistent with both the text of Rule 23 and 9th Circuit precedent on whether classes can be certified with more than a de minimus number of uninjured class members. "The possibility that a more than de minimus number of class members may ultimately lose on the merits of their claims doesn't mean that a class action is not the best and most efficient way of resolving a case," Nelson said. "Even if it is possible that the defendants may ultimately succeed in showing that 28% of the class could not recover, a reasonable district court could still conclude that this case would benefit from being litigated as a class action because the common questions it undisputedly presents predominate over questions that are not common." It's worth noting, as the 9th Circuit did in its opinion, that the major defendants have been targeted in a Justice Department antitrust case and have admitted price fixing. Gregory Garre of Latham & Watkins argued at the 9th Circuit for the tuna defendants. A Latham spokeswoman said the firm would not provide a statement on the decision. Allen & Overy and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison also represent defendants in the case. A spokesman for StarKist said the company was pleased with the decision decertifying the purchaser classes. StarKist's statement noted that senior managers were unaware of the anticompetitive conduct of one employee several years ago but that in an acceptance of responsibility has reached out-of-court settlements with more than 75% of its direct purchasers. "While we are pleased with this ruling and believe that the 9th Circuit's decision will make it difficult for the class plaintiffs to certify classes on remand, StarKist remains willing to work to resolve these issues on a reasonable basis so as to avoid further protracted litigation," the statement said. The tuna cases will now return to Sammartino, the trial judge, to decide whether plaintiffs' models show by a preponderance of the evidence that the class contains only a minimal number of uninjured class members. [GN] C-CON SERVICES: Carroll FLSA Class Suit Removed to E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled BETTY DIANE CARROLL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C-CON SERVICES, INC. and EARL B. COTTON, Case No. 21-2054-431, was removed from the 431st Judicial District Court in Denton County, Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on April 23, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of Texas assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00327 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation and retaliation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. C-Con Services, Inc. is a company that provides underground utility services, with its corporate headquarters located at 118 Hillside Dr., Lewisville, Texas. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Darrell Smith, Esq. Cynthia Karm, Esq. CUTLER-SMITH, P.C. Park Central 7 12750 Merit Drive, Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75251 Telephone: (214) 219-0800 Facsimile: (214) 219-0854 E-mail: darrell@cutler-smith.com ckarm@cutler-smith.com CALIFORNIA: Charter Schools File Class Action Over State Defunding ------------------------------------------------------------------ Samantha Nelson, writing for The Coast News Group, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by three local public charter schools fighting state defunding has been certified to represent more than 300 public charter schools throughout the state. Filed in September 2020 and led by The Classical Academies, River and Empire Springs charter schools and The Learning Choice Academy, the lawsuit Reyes v. State of California challenges the State of California's decision to not fund newly enrolled students in "non-classroom based" public charter schools that specialize in providing at-home, remote or hybrid learning. In California, a school is considered non-classroom based if more than 20% of learning occurs off-campus. These types of schools often serve students who are immune-compromised or hospitalized, students who have been bullied at other schools, students who are either academically behind or advanced, who are Olympic athletes, actors, homeless or who move frequently due to their parents being in the military. Historically, California's education funding followed the student, meaning that if a student leaves a public school for a public charter school, the funding for that particular student would follow them to the new school. Last summer, the state decided to not fund new students at these particular types of public charter schools during the 2020-2021 school year. "For the very first time ever, state funding didn't follow the student," said Cameron Curry, executive director at Classical Academies. By that point, Classical Academies and other similar public charter schools had already enrolled students for that school year, meaning they would have to provide for these new students without the state funding they would have traditionally had. The lawsuit asserts that 5-year-old Olena Reyes was waitlisted at Classical Academies due to the defunding move, preventing her from attending school with her older brother Santino and blocking access to a potentially beneficial education program that will help the young girl, who like her brother is on the autism spectrum. Curry said the school, which has several campus locations throughout Escondido and Oceanside, has had to dip into its reserves to continue providing for the nearly 1,200 students it already enrolled throughout the summer last year before the state decided to defund non-classroom-based charter schools. Regional charter schools saw an influx of students coming from public schools due to the COVID-19 pandemic last year, especially in the beginning when some school districts were slow to respond. Classical Academies on the other hand had pivoted quickly, Curry said. "Parents weren't getting anything from their local school districts," he said. "When they heard Classical Academies' students were meeting with teachers virtually, they thought, 'I want that for my kid.'" According to Classical Academies and its legal representatives, the state breached its constitutional, statutory and contractual obligations to fund each student's education at the public school they choose. Then last month, a state court ordered class certification of the lawsuit, making it the first class-action lawsuit involving charter schools in California. The court's order granting class certification is significant because a victory will apply to the state's 308 non-classroom-based charter schools that serve nearly 200,000 students and ensure their right to be funded. "We now carry the weight of 308 schools, which represents 29% of all charter public schools in the state with our litigation," stated Paul Minney, an attorney with Young, Minney & Corr, LLP, who is representing the plaintiff schools. "This decision elevates these schools and validates the needs they all have for access to constitutionally guaranteed funding for students and their public education." Curry said he is looking forward to the lawsuit's day in court, which is currently scheduled for July. Still, the fight may continue sometime after that hearing. "I anticipate that we will win the case and that the state will appeal," Curry said. [GN] CANAAN INC: Faces Denny Suit Over 30% Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- JASON DENNY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CANAAN INC., NANGENG ZHANG, and TONG HE, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03299 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of Canaan between February 10, 2021 and April 9, 2021 (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act"). According to the complaint, on Monday, April 12, 2021, before the opening of trading, Canaan issued a press release finally disclosing its actual 4Q20 and FY20 financial results for the period ended December 31, 2020, including a 93% year-over-year decrease in computing power sold and net revenues for the quarter. On this news, the market price of Canaan ADRs allegedly collapsed from their close of $18.67 per ADR on April 9, 2021 to close at $13.14 per ADR on April 12, 2021, a decline of nearly 30%, on unusually high volume of approximately 60 million ADRs trading, more than three times the average daily volume over the preceding ten trading days. Canaan Inc. provides semiconductor solutions. The Company produces custom designed integrated circuit microprocessors for supercomputing hardware. Canaan serves customers worldwide. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -and- Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 1700 Broadway, 41st Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Facsimile: (212) 292-5680 E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com CANOO INC: Gainey McKenna Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; NASDAQ: GOEVW) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Canoo between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canoo had decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model; (ii) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering services business; (iii) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously-announced partnership with Hyundai; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 29, 2021, Canoo revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering services line, which had been touted in the SPAC merger documents just three months earlier and formed the basis of Canoo's growth story. On this news, Canoo's stock price fell more than 21.19%, damaging investors. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Canoo during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June 1, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] CANOO INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on April 6 disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV; GOEVW) ("Canoo") f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (NASDAQ: HCAC; HCACW; HCACU) ("Hennessy Capital") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Canoo securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Canoo securities during the Class Period may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/canoo-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=Link&utm_campaign=Canoo Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle ("EV") company that touted a "unique business model that defies traditional ownership to put customers first." It announced a delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in 2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying technological platform. Hennessy Capital was a special purpose acquisition company formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization or similar business combination. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named Canoo (the "Merger"). The Class Period commences on August 18, 2020, when Hennessy Capital and Canoo Holdings issued a joint press release announcing the Merger. In its press release, Canoo Holdings touted its engineering services line and the Hyundai partnership for the co-development of a future EV platform. On September 18, 2020, Canoo filed its Registration Statement on a Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Registration Statement was subsequently amended on October 23, 2020 and November 27, 2020. Canoo also filed its Prospectus on a Form 424b3 with the SEC on December 4, 2020. On December 21, 2020, stockholders voted at a special meeting to approve the Merger. On March 29, 2021, after the market closed, Canoo held a conference call in connection with its fourth quarter 2020 financial results which were released the same day. During the call, defendant, Tony Aquila, a director of Canoo since the closing of the Merger, revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering services line. The same day, Canoo also announced that Paul Balciunas, who served as the Chief Financial Officer of Canoo following the close of the Merger, had resigned, effective April 2, 2021. Following this news, Canoo's stock price fell $2.50, or 21.19%, to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Canoo had decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model; (2) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering services business; (3) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously announced partnership with Hyundai; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Canoo investors may, no later than June 1, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] CANOO INC: Robbins Geller Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Canoo Inc. (NASDAQ:GOEV; NASDAQ:GOEVW) securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Blake v. Canoo Inc., No. 21-cv-02873, and is assigned to Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Canoo class action lawsuit charges Canoo and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Canoo securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Canoo class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Canoo class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Canoo class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Canoo class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Canoo class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Canoo class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, Jennifer Caringal of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Canoo class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than June 1, 2021. Canoo Holdings Ltd. ("Canoo Holdings") was an electric vehicle company that touted a "unique business model that defies traditional ownership to put customers first." Canoo Holdings has announced a delivery vehicle (to launch in 2022), pickup truck (to launch in 2023), and van, all of which are built on the same underlying technological platform. Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV ("Hennessy Capital") was a blank check company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), formed for the purpose of effecting a merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, reorganization, or similar business combination. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named "Canoo." The Canoo class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Canoo had decreased its focus on its plan to sell vehicles to consumers through a subscription model; (ii) Canoo would deemphasize its engineering services business; (iii) contrary to prior statements, Canoo did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers and no longer engaged in the previously-announced partnership with Hyundai; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Canoo's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 29, 2021, Canoo revealed that Canoo would no longer focus on its engineering services line, which had been touted in the SPAC merger documents just three months earlier and formed the basis of Canoo's growth story. On this news, Canoo's stock price fell more than 21.19%, damaging investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities class action litigation. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices, Robbins Geller has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history. For eight consecutive years, ISS Securities Class Action Services has ranked the Firm in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report as one of the top law firms in the world in both amount recovered for shareholders and total number of class action settlements. Robbins Geller attorneys have helped shape the securities laws and have recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of aggrieved victims. Beyond securing financial recoveries for defrauded investors, Robbins Geller also specializes in implementing corporate governance reforms, helping to improve the financial markets for investors worldwide. Robbins Geller attorneys are consistently recognized by courts, professional organizations, and the media as leading lawyers in the industry. Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Jennifer Caringal, 800-449-4900 JCaringal@rgrdlaw.com [GN] CANOO INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Canoo Inc. ("Canoo" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: GOEV) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 18, 2020 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Canoo shifted away from its previous focus on selling vehicles using a subscription model. The Company's engineering services would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021, or reduce operational risk. As a result, the Company would shift its focus away from the engineering services business as well. The Company did not have partnerships with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and was not engaging in its previously announced partnership with Hyundai. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Canoo, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] CASTILLO BUILDERS: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Fuentes Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELIO FUENTES, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CASTILLO BUILDERS LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00807 (E.D. La., April 21, 2021) arises from Castillo Builders' failure to pay Fuentes, and its other general laborers, appropriate overtime wages when they work more than 40 hours in a work week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The complaint alleges that as a general laborer, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. In fact, a typical work schedule requires Plaintiff to work more than 50 hours per week, with many weeks requiring him to work even more. Specifically, and by way of example, Plaintiff worked and was paid only straight time for 52.5 hours for the week of February 26, 2021 and 51.5 hours for the week of April 2, 2021. Castillo, however, did not pay Plaintiff and the class members for any overtime for hours worked over 40 in a work week. Castillo denied the rights of Plaintiff and the class members guaranteed to them under the FLSA, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Elio Fuentes was employed by Castillo as a general laborer from November 2020 through April 2021. Castillo Builders is a Louisiana limited liability company that may be served through its registered agent, Doris Millan, 6328 Farrel Drive, Slidell, LA 70460. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Preston L. Hayes, Esq. Ryan P. Monsour, Esq. Zachary R. Smith, Esq. HMS Law Firm 3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 590 Metairie, LA 70002 Telephone: (504) 356-0110 Facsimile: (504) 356-0104 CHAMPIGNON BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 10 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Champignon Brands Inc. (OTC: SHRMF) between March 27, 2020 and February 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Champignon investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Champignon class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Champignon had undisclosed material weaknesses and insufficient financial controls; (2) Champignon's previously issued financial statements were false and unreliable; (3) Champignon's earlier reported financial statements would need to be restated; (4) Champignon's acquisitions involved an undisclosed related party; (5) as a result of the foregoing and subsequent reporting delays and issues, the British Columbia Securities Commission would suspend Champignon's from trading; and (6) as a result, defendants' statements about Champignon's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2057.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] CHICAGO, IL: Lawsuit Mulled Over Crawford Coal Plant Implosion -------------------------------------------------------------- WLS reports that the implosion of an old coal plant in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood has sparked new controversy and also plans for a lawsuit. The demolition on April 10 sent a cloud of dust into the neighborhood and residents want to know why the city let it happen. A local attorney plans to file a class action lawsuit on behalf of residents. The controlled implosion sent dust particles all across the neighborhood, leaving behind a thick cloud of smoke. "About 10 minutes later you started seeing the haze and the smoke come through the neighborhood," said Daniel Reynoso, Little Village resident. "And a couple of minutes later it just got thicker and thicker." On a city-approved permit, Hilco Redevelopment Partners imploded this smokestack at the old Crawford Coal Plant on April 10. Reynoso is a community organizer, and said Hilco had pledged to bring the smokestack down with restrictions. "In a previous meeting with Hilco, the question was asked if they were going to use explosives or demolition in the remediation of the old facility. Their answer was always no," he said. Mayor Lori Lightfoot said her office was reassured the demolition would be controlled. But minutes after the implosion a massive dust cloud fell on the site and throughout Little Village. "The city was given repeated assurances that Hilco had a solid plan to contain the dust. Clearly that didn't happen," Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot said. City leaders were furious over the aftermath on April 11. "The fear and anxiety that residents feel about COVID-19 have only been exasperated with this situation," Ald. Michael Rodriguez said. Several alderman have called for an inspector general investigation into the demolition. The city has also cited and fined Hilco, ordering the company to conduct a full cleanup of the neighborhood. Maclovio, a photographer, captured imagines of the fog-like haze that fell upon the neighborhood. "It looked like something out of the movies, you couldn't even see in front of you," Maclovio said. The city is now working to hand out face masks to residents in affected areas as health officials examine the air quality and collected samples of dust. Calling the images of dust "outrageous," the mayor said she's ordered a full report of what happened at the site. "I know the significant health disparities that the Little Village community faces, just as many other communities across Chicago face. So to see a dust cloud from a demolition roll across homes and businesses is simply outrageous," an angered Lightfoot said, standing before the construction site in question Easter Sunday morning. "This is just a recurring pattern of gross negligence and incompetence by every level," said Lucky Camargo, Chicago resident. Pending review, all non-emergency demo work across the city, including the Little Village site, has been stopped. Hilco Redevelopment Partners released a statement about the demolition on April 11. Hilco released an updated statement on April 13 outlining a "thorough corrective action plan." "We are working cooperatively with the City of Chicago to review the demolition event undertaken by our contractor," the company said. "We are sensitive to the concerns of the community and we will continue to work in full cooperation." Chicago Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Allison Arwady answered questions on April 11 about how dust inhalation could exacerbate the risks of COVID-19 for residents. "I would not have major concern at this point based on what we know now," Arwady said. Arwady said before the implosion Hilco had met asbestos standards. But, the commissioner could not elaborate on any data collected since the April 10 incident. Regardless of what was released into the air with it, Arwady said a dust cloud is "a problem," and encouraged residents to monitor their health and reach out to their doctors if needed. [GN] COLORADO: Class Action Mulled Over ID.me Identity Verification -------------------------------------------------------------- Kati Weis, writing for CBS4, reports that Rachel Hall had been on unemployment since January, until she got a request to verify her identity through ID.me in March. She tried multiple times to follow the directions provided, but was unsuccessful. "I kept getting weird error code, on error code, on error code," Hall explained. She tried searching what the error code meant, but couldn't find any answers. She tried emailing ID.me's helpdesk, but never got a response. She also tried calling the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment for help. "They would say, 'You know, I'm so sorry, you're not the first person that's dealing with this, unfortunately we're not trained on ID.me, and we don't have access to the inside of the system, so you'll have to work with ID.me directly to get help,'" Hall said. "It's just been circles." As a result of the unsuccessful verification attempts, Hall hasn't received unemployment money in a month. "It's aggravating," Hall said. "I'm at the point where, I need to get groceries, I need to pay my car bill . . . I don't want it to be repossessed or, or to lose anything." She's not alone. Terri Kirby also hasn't been able to verify her identity with ID.me. She's so frustrated, she wrote a formal complaint to the Colorado Attorney General's Office. "Shutting off benefits, and then telling people they have to figure this out, and when they get stuck, there's no one that they can reach out to, that is unacceptable," Kirby said. Kirby is also pursuing legal options for a possible class-action lawsuit against the state. "My main intention is to stop unemployment from unjustly cutting off people's benefits, while working with a company that is not providing the services that they're supposed to be providing in a timely manner," Kirby said. "The effect this has on your mental health . . . they want everybody out searching for work, and moving forward, and yet they're removing the very foundation that many, many, many people are depending on to be able to do that." The CDLE required all claimants who had not previously verified their identity to do so in order to continue receiving benefits. So far, the department says about 14% of claimants trying to verify their identity are unsuccessful, and will need to get help from a trusted referee video chat. The department would not say exactly how many people that is. Kirby said the wait time for her trusted referee video chat was five hours. "I was like, 'oh my gosh, do I just have to be available for the next five hours,' I had things on my calendar," Kirby said. "So, I went about my day, never heard anything; I kept checking my email and my texts to see if anybody had contacted me, and I called the Unemployment Insurance office on Tuesday, and I think Wednesday I called twice, and was told both times, that there's nothing they can do." READ MORE: Denver Police Officer Jacob Marsh Arrested On Investigation Of Vehicular Assault Charges After Head-On Crash The CDLE said of the 1,134,126 claimants that have been referred to ID.me since January, only 137,027 identities have been verified. The department believes that's because the majority of claimants are fraudsters. So far, the CDLE says more than $91 million in unemployment money has been released to legitimate claimants as a result of the ID.me verification system. ID.me's CEO Blake Hall wrote in a statement the company is "perfectly capable of handling new claims volumes in tens of states; however, when states run hundreds of thousands to millions of claimants through our system all at once to verify accumulated claims, then wait times increase." The CEO also said the company is hiring more staff to handle the volume. "At the same time, we are actively defeating Russian attackers attempting to bypass our Face Liveness technology, international crime rings out of Uzbekistan, and social engineering attacks originating from Nigeria," he wrote. "We are also fighting off global botnet attacks attempting to perform account takeover. Fighting these professional attackers contributes to operational complexity." After CBS4 Inquired about Rachel Hall's case, she got a call from ID.me, and was able to verify her identity. She was told she should be receiving benefits again. But she worries about potentially thousands of others who are still struggling. "We shouldn't have to go to the media," she said. "The company should have seen this coming, and there should have been a quicker response on their end, although I'm thankful that they were able to escalate my case and get it resolved so quickly, I'm still very concerned about families that aren't in the same position that I am." If you're having trouble verifying your identity, you can find step-by-step guides here. You can also try contacting ID.me directly here. If after trying those methods, you're still struggling, contact CBS4 investigator Kati Weis. The following is ID.me's entire written statement to CBS4: "Nearly 90% of applicants pass ID.me via automated means in just a few minutes using a computer, phone, and a few pieces of documentation that most people would carry in their wallet. Those who are unable to use the automated process -- or those who have come with the wrong documents or copies of documents rather than originals -- are directed to the video chat process. It's important to note that ID.me is the only vendor in the United States that can verify identities via video chat. In states not partnering with ID.me, those who don't have a credit history or a presence in records do not have an option to verify their identity online. We are currently working with more than 22 states including Colorado to combat massive unemployment fraud. Wait times for the video chat feature are increasing because several states, including Colorado, Nevada, Florida, and California, are sending months to a full year's worth of claimants through ID.me at once to combat fraud within existing claims pools. ID.me is perfectly capable of handling new claims volumes in tens of states; however, when states run hundreds of thousands to millions of claimants through our system all at once to verify accumulated claims, then wait times increase. For new claims, we see fraud rates of over 30% for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) claims. Because of the high fraud rate for new claims, many states want to make sure no additional taxpayer dollars are lost and are therefore asking ID.me to verify all claimants - both new and existing claimants who have been receiving benefits since March. For backlogged claims, we're seeing fraud rates north of 50%. This has been causing wait times to increase. At the same time, we are actively defeating Russian attackers attempting to bypass our Face Liveness technology, international crime rings out of Uzbekistan, and social engineering attacks originating from Nigeria. We are also fighting off global botnet attacks attempting to perform account takeover. Fighting these professional attackers contributes to operational complexity. We know how important these benefits are and are working 24/7 to help claimants. To support the influx in claimants, we are also hiring video chat staff, almost 40 to 50 employees a week, so we can support more claimants in the process of receiving their benefits as quickly as possible. I also want to emphasize that we are the only company in the country that can remotely verify individuals who don't have a presence in records. Individuals who fall into these categories in states that don't use ID.me have little to no recourse at all to prove their identity online." [GN] COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Columbia University trustees settled a 28,000-person class action challenging the school's retirement plans less than a week before the case was scheduled to begin an in-person trial, the parties told a Manhattan federal judge. The settlement notice comes one week after Judge George B. Daniels ordered all designated witnesses to testify in person at the Employee Retirement Income Security Act trial, scheduled to begin April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN] COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: DeForest Sues Over Confusing Debt Letters ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAN DEFOREST, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00772 (C.D. Cal., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant sent mail-based debt collection correspondence to consumers and debtors, including the Plaintiff, on time-barred debts without advising the consumers and debtors that the statutes of limitations for filing legal claims to collect on those debts had expired, and thus, that legal claims cannot be brought against them past of the statute of limitations and that making even the smallest of payments renews the expired statutes of limitations. Further, the Defendant allegedly used the term "settlement" on its debt collection letter to mislead debtors and consumers into believing that legal action against them was pending. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc. is a debt collection firm based in Dickson City, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 722-6885 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com CONTAINER STORE: Worth Avenue Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Worth Avenue Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Ta-boo Restaurant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Case No. 50-2021-CA-003091 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on April 12, 2021, and assigned Case No. 9:21-cv-80700-AMC. On March 8, 2021, the Plaintiff commenced this putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida (the "State Court Action"). The Plaintiff filed the State Court Action as a putative nationwide class action seeking insurance coverage from Underwriters on behalf of "all restaurants that have suffered business interruption and lost income as a result of the Civil Authority Orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic." The Plaintiff asserts that "due to the nature and commerce involved, the Plaintiff believes the Class consists of thousands of insureds nationwide, making joinder of the Class members impractical."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Armando P. Rubio, Esq. FIELDS HOWELL LLP, 9155 So. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1012 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (786) 870-5600 Fax: (855) 802-5821 Email: arubio@fieldshowell.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Debt Letter "Deceptive," Cowan Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRYSTAL COWAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00568-UNA (D. Del., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Convergent sent a misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding her alleged debt owed to T-Mobile, USA. The letter is deceptive because it implies that in exchange of 50% of the balance the consumer will achieve some form of settlement, when in actuality it is unclear what form of settlement the letter is offering. The letter states that T-Mobile will recall the account and cease all collection activity but does not clarify what will occur with the rest of the balance and whether the rest of the balance would be collected by another collection company in the future. Further, the letter fails clearly state whether the account will be reinstated upon payment of 50% of the balance, the suit asserts. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. is a debt collection firm with its principal place of business located at 28 Liberty Street, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 N. Bancroft Pkwy., Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Telephone: (302) 722-6885 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Kirksey Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing Inc. The case is styled as Maurice Kirksey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Convergent Outsourcing Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01644-AT-JSA (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. -- https://www.convergentusa.com/outsourcing/ -- is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Misty Oaks Paxton, Esq. THE OAKS FIRM 3895 Brookgreen Pt. Decatur, GA 30034 Phone: (404) 500-7861 Email: attyoaks@yahoo.com CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Ramirez Files Suit in California Superior Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cornerstone Building Brands, et al. The case is styled as Claudia Ramirez, Lilian B. Cabrera, Alicia Fernandez, Rosa Hernandez, Esmeralda Lizbeth Mendez Lozano, Ana Rosa Mendoza, Dulce Nieto, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Cornerstone Building Brands, Ply Gem Pacific Windows Corporation, Ply Gem Residential Solutions, Ply Gem Windows, Simonton Doors & Windows, unknown business entities, Case No. 34-2021-00298527-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Cornerstone Building Brands -- https://www.cornerstonebuildingbrands.com/ -- is one of the leaders in the commercial construction industry and is the #1 manufacturer of windows, vinyl siding, insulated metal panels, metal roofing and wall systems and metal accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Phone: 818-265-1020 Fax: 818-265-1021 CREDIT SUISSE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP successfully represented Credit Suisse in a class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Credit Suisse and other banks violated the antitrust laws by colluding to manipulate U.S. Treasury auctions and the pricing of Treasury securities in the when-issued market, and that the banks and certain trading platforms engaged in a group boycott to prevent exchange-style trading of Treasury securities in the secondary market. On March 31, 2021, Judge Paul Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Credit Suisse's motions to dismiss all claims against it, ruling that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim against defendants because plaintiffs did not plausibly allege an antitrust conspiracy. The Cahill's team included David G. Januszewski (Picture), Herbert S. Washer, Elai Katz, Thorn Rosenthal, Tara H. Curtin, and John MacGregor. [GN] CYTODYN INC: Scott+Scott Announces Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against CytoDyn, Inc. ("CytoDyn") (OTCQB: CYDY) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased CytoDyn shares between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, inclusive, and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that CytoDyn made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions regarding its development-stage drug Leronlimab. Beginning on March 5, 2021, CytoDyn began issuing press releases that described the results of Phase IIb/III testing data. In these releases, CytoDyn disclosed that the primary endpoint for the Leronlimab study (all-cause mortality at Day 28) was not statistically significant. Upon the opening of trading, CytoDyn shares dropped over 28% to close at $2.91 on March 8, 2021. On March 9, 2021, CytoDyn shares dropped an additional 19% to close at $2.35. What You Can Do If you purchased CytoDyn securities between March 27, 2020 and March 9, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is May 17, 2021. About Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Connecticut, California, and Ohio. Contacts: Joe Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] DEARBORN BISTRO: Misclassifies Exotic Dancers, Johnson Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONTASIA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. DEARBORN BISTRO, LLC d/b/a PANTHEION CLUB, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-10797-MAG-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 9, 2021) brings this class and collective action complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff has worked as exotic dancer for the Defendant at the Defendant's Pantheion Club in Dearborn, Michigan for the period of about July 2017 through November 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant misclassified her and other similarly situated exotic dancers as independent contractors when they should have been classified under the FLSA and MMWL as employees. Throughout their employment with the Defendant, they were not paid any wages or any compensation for all hours they worked each week. In addition, the Defendant required them to pay the club or its ownership or management house fees and/or kickback of $30.00-$100.00 or more for each shift they worked, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid wages and all tips and gratuities unlawfully taken by the Defendant, as well as statutory liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Dearborn Bistro, LLC d/b/a Pantheion Club operates a strip club featuring exotic dancers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@ZAGFirm.com -and – David A. Kowalski, Esq. MELON PRIES KOWALSKI, P.C. 2150 Butterfield Drive, Suite 100 Troy, MI 48084 Tel: (248) 649-1330 E-mail: dkowalski@mellonpries.com DEYOUNG PORK: Faces Suit Over Worker's Unpaid Wages, Sexual Assault ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. DEYOUNG PORK, INC., DEYOUNG HOG FARM, LLC, and JOEL DEYOUNG, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00343 (W.D. Mich., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, for violations of her rights on the basis of sex under the Fair Housing Act and Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, and for the common-law intentional torts of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants' farm from 2008 until March 2019. DeYoung Pork, Inc. is a pig farm owner and operator, with its headquarters in Plainwell, Michigan. DeYoung Hog Farm, LLC is a pig farm owner and operator, with its headquarters in Plainwell, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. Robin B. Wagner, Esq. PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: rwagner@pittlawpc.com mbonanni@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com - and – Jessica Glynn, Esq. YWCA KALAMAZOO 353 E. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Telephone: (269) 743-9463 E-mail: jglynn@ywcakalamazoo.org EBANG INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Ebang International Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: EBON) resulting from allegations that Ebang may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Ebang securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2075.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 6, 2021, Hindenburg Research published a report entitled: "Ebang: Yet Another Crypto 'China Hustle' Absconding With U.S. Investor Cash[.]" The report alleges, among other things, that the Chinese cryptocurrency company is directing proceeds from its initial public offering (IPO) last year into a "series of opaque deals with insiders and questionable counterparties." Also according to the report, Ebang raised $21 million in November 2020 during a secondary offering claiming the proceeds would go "primarily for development," and that allegedly $21 million was directed to repay related-party loans to a relative of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Further, the report noted that EBang's earlier efforts to go public on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange failed due to widespread media coverage of its relationship with Yindou, a Chinese peer-to-peer online lending scheme that defrauded 20,000 retail investors in 2018, with $655 million "vanish(ing) into thin air." On this news, EBang's stock price fell 12% to close at $5.53 on April 6, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume, damaging investors. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] EBIX INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Investigates Securities Class Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Ebix, Inc. ("Ebix" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EBIX) and reminds investors of the April 23, 2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company. If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Ebix stock or options between November 9, 2020 and February 19, 2021 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You may also click here for additional information: www.faruqilaw.com/EBIX. There is no cost or obligation to you. Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) that there was insufficient audit evidence to determine the business purpose of certain significant unusual transactions in Ebix's gift card business in India during the fourth quarter of 2020; (2) that there was a material weakness in Company's internal controls over the gift or prepaid revenue transaction cycle; and (3) that the Company's independent auditor was reasonably likely to resign over disagreements with Ebix regarding $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Specifically, on February 19, 2021, after the market closed, Ebix revealed that its independent auditor, RSM US LLP ("RSM"), resigned "as a result of being unable, despite repeated inquiries, to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that would allow it to evaluate the business purpose of significant unusual transactions that occurred in the fourth quarter of 2020" related to the Company's gift card business in India. RSM had also stated that there was a material weakness related to Ebix's failure to design controls "over the gift or prepaid card revenue transaction cycle sufficient to prevent or detect a material misstatement." In addition, Ebix and RSM disagreed over the accounting treatment of $30 million that had been transferred into a commingled trust account of Ebix's outside legal counsel in December 2020. On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as $20.24, or approximately 40%, to close at $30.50 on February 22, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume. The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Ebix's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. [GN] ELANCO ANIMAL: McDermotts Sue Over Unsafe Flea & Tick Collars ------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL MCDERMOTT AND CHRISTINA MCDERMOTT v. ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH, INC. and BAYER HEALTHCARE, LLC, and BAYER HEALTHCARE ANIMAL HEALTH, INC., Case No.: 4:21-cv-461 (E.D. Mo., April 21, 2021) is a class action brought pursuant to Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act seeking money damages arising from damages to the Class, including but not limited to the purchase price paid by Plaintiffs and the Class for the Seresto Flea and Tick Collar products developed, manufactured, marketed and/or sold by Defendants. The complaint alleges that the Defendants knowingly marketed and sold toxic flea and tick collars to Plaintiffs and unwitting consumers in the State of Missouri. Among other things, and only recently revealed as a result of public records requests to the Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants concealed from Plaintiffs and the Class that the Seresto Flea & Tick Collars they purchased had been associated with the deaths and/or serious injuries of thousands of pets as well as injuries to humans. Defendants concealed the significant risks these products presented to Missouri pet owners, and instead represented that the products were both safe and effective, and charged premium prices for their products on this basis, notes the complaint. Defendants continue to tout the collars' safety and conceal their risks, the complaint adds. Plaintiffs Michael McDermott and Christina McDermott are a married couple and are citizens and residents of Chesterfield, Missouri. Plaintiffs purchased at least two flea and tick collars under Defendants' Seresto brand. Plaintiffs were not aware at the time of sale that use of Seresto Flea & Tick Collars was associated with the deaths and/or serious injuries of thousands of pets, or of the other dangers presented by the Seresto Collars. Elanco Animal Health, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Indiana. Elanco represents itself as a "global animal health company" and from approximately August of 2020 to the present has manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised and sold Seresto Collars in the stream of commerce, including throughout the State of Missouri. Bayer Healthcare, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New York. Bayer Healthcare Animal Health, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex R. Lumaghi, Esq. Lia Dowd, Esq. DOWD & DOWD, P.C. 211 North Broadway, Suite 4050 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: 314-621-2500 Fax: 314-621-2503 E-mail: bill@dowdlaw.net alex@dowdlaw.net lia@dowdlaw.net ENHANCED RECOVERY: Grogan Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed Enhanced Recovery Company. The case is styled as Justin Grogan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, Case No. 8:21-cv-00966 (M.D. Fla., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Enhanced Recovery Company (ERC) -- https://www.ercbpo.com/ -- is a debt collection agency located in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yosef Steinmetz, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI, LLP 300 Cadman Plaza W., 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Email: yosef@cml.legal EPIC GAMES: Parent Challenges Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Kirsten Errick, writing for Law Street, reports that on April 5 in the Northern District of California, a parent opposed Epic Games' motion to dismiss the class-action suit brought against it regarding the plaintiff's minor child's use of real money to pay for virtual items in the popular video game Fortnite. Previously, Epic Games filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the plaintiffs lack standing, or, in the alternative, asked for the matter to be considered through arbitration. February's class-action suit alleged that Epic Games misled minors to use real money for in-game purchases for nonrefundable virtual currency in video game Fortnite without involving parents or guardians in the purchasing process. According to the opposition, "Epic Games seeks to evade this Court's jurisdiction over those claims so that it might conclude a settlement in North Carolina state court that would not get approved here." In particular, the plaintiffs noted that in C.W. v. Epic Games, "a minor plaintiff no different from the plaintiff here brought class claims seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief from Epic Games on causes of action founded on a minor's legal right to disaffirm purchases of virtual items made in Fortnite and related theories." The K.W. plaintiffs claimed that, in the other suit, Epic Games moved to compel arbitration; however, Judge Gonzalez Rogers denied the motion because C.W. disaffirmed those agreements. Then, Epic Games moved to dismiss the C.W. suit, claiming that since C.W.'s Fortnite purchases were "concluded in the Apple (iTunes) and Sony (PlayStation) marketplaces, C.W. had no disaffirmation claim directly against Epic Games." However, the judge rejected this claim, and, subsequently, the C.W. suit survived these motions. The K.W. plaintiffs noted that the instant action "is a continuation of C.W., filed one month after it was voluntarily dismissed." The K.W. plaintiffs claimed that, similarly, the plaintiff is a minor Fortnite player seeking relief and the class-action was "founded on a minor's legal right to disaffirm purchases of virtual items in Fortnite and related theories." The plaintiffs stated that the minor class and claims in K.W. are similar to that in C.W. "(T)he only significant difference between the two cases is that this one also involves claims brought by the minor's guardian on behalf of a class of California parents . . . but nothing in the motion to dismiss or compel hinges on that difference," according to the operative plaintiffs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs contended that Epic Games "should not have filed its motion here," adding that Epic Games "does not argue that Judge Gonzalez Rogers' rulings were mistaken, so those are a given. And its efforts to show that this case is different are either factually inaccurate or legally irrelevant." In particular, the plaintiffs asserted that Epic Games' claims that the instant action was moot because it offered K.W. a refund, which the plaintiff rejected, is barred by Ninth Circuit precedent, which held that "a defendant cannot moot a class action by satisfying the named plaintiff's individual claim." Therefore, the plaintiffs argued that the defendant's "effort to characterize the refund as its ‘acceptance' of a 'proposal' K.W. made by disaffirming his contracts - and not an attempt to moot the case by satisfying his individual claim - does not make sense." The plaintiffs argued that Epic Games' argument that K.W. lacks standing "because K.W. did not make any purchases from it is make-weight." Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that K.W. completed at least one in-game Fortnite purchase. According to the plaintiffs, Epic Games' assertion that K.W. "must arbitrate because he clicked agreements requiring acceptance by an adult was rejected in C.W." Additionally, the plaintiffs proffered that Epic Games' claims that it thought "K.W. was acting as agent for an adult is wrong because, among other reasons, Epic Games knows that it is dealing with children." The plaintiffs added that Epic Games waived its right to arbitrate "by affirmatively and through dubious tactics seeking to channel Plaintiffs' claims to a North Carolina state court for resolution." Lastly, the K.W. plaintiffs averred that Epic Games' motion to dismiss "rests on multiple assertions of fact that are both disputed and questionable." Therefore, the plaintiffs ask the court to grant leave to conduct discovery for subject matter jurisdiction and arbitrability. The plaintiff is represented by One LLP and Bay Advocacy PLLC. Epic Games is represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. [GN] EREDI PISANO: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Eredi Pisano USA, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Eredi Pisano USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-02237 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Eredi Pisano USA Inc. -- https://eredipisano.com/ -- is a high-end Italian clothing company based in Rome that specializes in fine garments as well as made-to-measure garments for men.[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 ESURANCE PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC A/A/O JORDAN RIMERT, v. ESURANCE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 124037008 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., March 30, 2021) is an action asserting a class action claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Statutes. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the statutory interest required by the Florida Statutes section 627.736(4)(d) because the Defendant did not calculate interest in accordance with the Florida Statutes section 55.03, which sets a variable interest rate, but instead paid interest at a fixed rate from the date of notice of the covered loss. The Plaintiff contends that for all claims similarly situated, where the Defendant made an overdue payment to an insured or the insured's assignee, Defendant calculated and paid interest at a fixed rate rather than the variable rate set forth in Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation authorized to do business, and doing business, in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Defendant is a foreign for profit corporation authorized to transact, and transacting, insurance business in Hillsborough County, Florida, and at all times material hereto provided no-fault (Personal Injury Protection (PIP)) insurance coverage throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq. LAWRENCE M. KOPELMAN, P.A. 7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-6855 Facsimile:(954) 206-0188 E-mail: LMK@kopelblank.com - and - Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 91650 SE 17th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 E-mail: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com ETHICON INC: Shine Lawyers Files Second Mesh Implant Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerome Doraisamy, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that a national plaintiff firm has launched new proceedings against medical device manufacturers Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson seeking compensation for women who were implanted with defective mesh implants. Earlier on Wednesday, 7 April, Shine Lawyers filed a second class action in the Federal Court on behalf of women who were implanted with defective mesh products after 4 July 2017. Those implanted with the pelvic floor repair systems, Shien argues, may have experienced symptoms of complications such as chronic pain, painful intercourse and incontinence. This is the second class action brought by Shine against Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson, with the first -- which Shine called "the largest women's health class action in Australia's history" -- seeing the court find in favour of the plaintiffs. In her November 2019 judgment, Justice Anna Katzmann found that pelvic mesh implants sold by Johnson & Johnson and Ethicon were "not fit for purpose" and of "unmerchantable quality". "These defective mesh products have eroded in some women's bodies, moving through tissue and penetrating or sticking to organs, causing debilitating chronic pain," posited Shine practice leader Rebecca Jancauskas. "We have seen first-hand the terrible impact these products can have on women's lives and this drives our team to pursue all available avenues to seek reparations for these women." Last month, that landmark decision was upheld, after the defendants appealed this time last year. Katzmann J had ruled that 4 July 2017 -- the date on which the trial for that class action commenced -- was the cut-off for entry into the class for that first action, and as such, Ms Jancauskas is heading up new proceedings for women excluded the first time around, who "understandably felt distressed that their suffering would not be recognised and they would not be eligible for compensation". "We know there are thousands of women who were implanted with these defective products or who have developed complications after this date, that's why we've continued to fight for justice for these women, so none are left behind," she said. The firm said that "hundreds" of women who registered their interest for the earlier proceedings have been identified as potentially eligible group members in the new proceedings. The news follows the filing of separate proceedings by AJB Stevens Lawyers against Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Pty Ltd on behalf of women who have suffered "debilitating injuries" caused by mesh implants that "were not of merchantable quality and did not have an acceptable quality". [GN] EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Frederick Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Britteny Frederick, Alexander Pruefer, Jinger Sanders, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Examsoft Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 2021CH01276 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-02190 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. ExamSoft -- https://examsoft.com/ -- helps academic institutions improve student learning with secure assessment tools and software that provide valuable data, insights, and reports.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear pro se. FELDMAN LAW: Intervention in Sullivan Arbitration Proceedings Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SCOTT SULLIVAN, FRANK DELLACROCE, et al., Plaintiffs v. STEWART A. FELDMAN, THE FELDMAN LAW FIRM LLP, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. H-20-2236 (S.D. Tex.), Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, denied the Defendants' emergency motion and an amended emergency motion seeking a swift response. The Court denied the motions because the circumstances the Defendants present are neither an emergency, particularly in a court dealing with the impact of a global pandemic, nor a basis for the relief they seek. The Defendants ask the Court to intervene in ongoing arbitration proceedings by ruling on two issues: Whether the parties' arbitration agreement allows for class arbitration; and whether a discovery order requiring production of certain documents was proper. The Defendants also challenge the Court's jurisdiction over recently removed cases that are part of the sprawling set of proceedings. The parties' arbitration agreement is one reason Judge Rosenthal declines to provide the relief the Defendants seek. He says the agreement delegates to the arbitrator not only the exclusive right to decide issues of "arbitrability," but also to resolve "all disputes and challenges to the formation and enforceability of this arbitration agreement." The parties stated their intent to "divest the courts of all powers in disputes involving the parties, except to compel arbitration, and to confirm, vacate or enforce award. The courts will have no jurisdiction over legal or equitable (including injunctive) matters. The arbitration decision will be final and binding in all respects." Judge Rosenthal holds that this broad delegation clause and the absence of any explicit provision barring class actions in the arbitration, mean that the Court has no basis to intrude at this stage. The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that parties may delegate arbitrability and arbitration issues to the arbitrator in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S.Ct. 1407, 1417 (2019); Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 139 S.Ct. 524, 530 (2019); and Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63, 68-69 (2010). The Fifth Circuit has also consistently held that the availability of class arbitration is a "gateway" arbitrability issue. If the parties agree to delegate arbitrability issues to the arbitrator, then they agree to delegate the class-arbitration issue, unless their agreement contains a clear class-arbitration bar. Beyond this point, Judge Rosenthal notes that the Court's previously expressed reluctance to intrude in the middle of an ongoing contract-based arbitration remains. The reluctance is reinforced by the appearance in the current record that the factual basis for the emergency relief the Defendants seek -- a request by arbitrators for court guidance -- is, at best unclear, and at least overstated. On the discovery issue, the courts are clear that when, as in the case, the arbitration clause is broad and the arbitrator's exclusive powers include discovery, the court should not step in to second guess discovery rulings during the arbitration. Finally, the Judge holds that the argument as to the lack of removal jurisdiction is an insufficient basis for the relief the defendants seek. Among other gaps, the argument fails sufficiently to account for the relationship between the recently removed cases and the case that the Defendants themselves removed to federal court, with no indication of an uncertain jurisdictional basis for doing so. The argument also glosses over the fact that the recently removed cases were filed in an attempt to undermine the Court's order compelling arbitration. Judge Rosenthal concludes that there is no emergency giving the case the privilege to jump to the front of the line, leapfrogging over other cases with more acute needs for prompt judicial time and attention. There is no emergency that warrants the relief the Defendants seek. The parties picked arbitration. The parties agreed that the arbitration would proceed until the issuance of the final award, which might then be appropriate for judicial review and enforcement. The parties must comply with the choices they made. Hence, the motion and amended emergency motion are denied. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5s94ee78 from Leagle.com. FIAT CHRYSLER: Judge Approves Emissions Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Martina Bellini, writing for Global Legal Chronicle, reports that a Manhattan federal judge approved a $110 million settlement for Fiat Chrysler investors who sued when the automaker's alleged lies about emissions practices came to light, but he lopped about $3 million from a $32.2 million fee request made by lawyers who brought the class action. omerantz LLP and The Rosen Law Firm successfully assisted the plaintiff on the class action. Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP acted for the defendant. The Rosen Law Firm team was led by Sara Esther Fuks. The Pomerantz team comprised of Michael Jonathan Wernke, Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Jeremy Alan Lieberman, and Veronica Valeria Montenegro. The case is styled Pirnik v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles, N.V. [GN] FIBROGEN INC: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Class Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of FibroGen Inc. ("Fibrogen" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: FGEN) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your FibroGen investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/fibrogen-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On April 6, 2021, after the market closed, FibroGen issued a statement "provid[ing] clarification of certain prior disclosures of U.S. primary cardiovascular safety analyses from the roxadustat Phase 3 program for the treatment of anemia of chronic kidney disease ('CKD')." Specifically, the Company stated that the safety analyses "included post-hoc changes to the stratification factors." FibroGen further revealed that, based on analyses using the pre-specified stratification factors, the Company "cannot conclude that roxadustat reduces the risk of (or is superior to) MACE+ in dialysis, and MACE and MACE+ in incident dialysis compared to epoetin-alfa." On this news, the Company's share price fell as much as 40.65%, during intraday trading on April 7, 2021. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding FibroGen should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 www.glancylaw.com shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN] FIRST EAGLE: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Eagle Investment Management, LLC. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. First Eagle Investment Management, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03606-ER (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. First Eagle Investment Management -- https://www.feim.com/ -- is a US investment management company based in New York City that is an adviser to the First Eagle Funds.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal FRANCIS FINANCIAL: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Francis Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Francis Financial, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03607 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Francis Financial, Inc. -- https://francisfinancial.com/ -- is an award winning, Boutique Wealth Management and Financial Planning firm dedicated to providing successful individuals and families personalized financial guidance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal FRED ALGER: Thorne Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fred Alger Management, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Braulio Thorne, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Fred Alger Management, LLC, Fred Alger & Company, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03608 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Fred Alger Management, Inc. -- https://www.alger.com/Pages/Home.aspx -- operates as an investment management firm. The Company offers portfolio management and advisory services to individuals, religious organizations, foundations, endowments, corporate pensions, public plans, institutions, and pooled investment vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal GAP INC: Liberto Suit Removed to Middle District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Pamela Liberto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-00510 was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00436-MMH-JBT to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. The Gap, Inc., commonly known as Gap Inc. or Gap -- https://www.gapinc.com/en-us/ -- is an American worldwide clothing and accessories retailer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com - and - Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Ave, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 120 E. Palmetto Park Road Suite 500 Boca Raton, Fl 33433 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: chris@edelsberglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jordan David Maglich, Esq. Ashley Elizabeth Trehan, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC - TAMPA FL 401 E Jackson Street, Ste. 2400 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 222-2098 Email: jordan.maglich@bipc.com ashley.trehan@bipc.com - and - Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq. COOLEY LLP - SAN FRANCISCO CA 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Phone: (415) 693-2181 Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com GC SERVICES: Anderson Files FDCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership, et al. The case is styled as Brandi Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, John Does 1-25, Case No. 5:21-cv-00406-XR (W.D. Tex., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GC Services -- https://www.gcserv.com/ -- is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com GENUINE DATA: Faces Jackson Suit Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL E. JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. GENUINE DATA SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00211-DJN (E.D. Va., March 30, 2021) is a consumer class action for damages, costs and attorney's fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act brought against the Defendant, a consumer reporting agency that allegedly violates the FCRA's basic protections by failing to ensure that the information that it sells about consumers is as accurate as possible and reportable under the law. This case arises because GDS routinely violates these FCRA provisions in its issuance of consumer reports to resellers like non-party RealPage. RealPage, using the moniker "The Leasing Desk," sells consumer reports to landlords for use in tenant screening. Such use brings those reports under the ambit of the FCRA. In this instance, GDS provided to The Leasing Desk data about Plaintiff which The Leasing Desk then furnished to the Plaintiff's potential landlord. The GDS report included a decades-old traffic citation that was not permitted to be reported under the FCRA's obsolescence provision, the suit says. After Plaintiff was denied a housing opportunity as a result of this report, the Plaintiff requested a copy of his full file from RealPage, from which he was able to learn that GDS was the at least one source of the outdated traffic citation. The Plaintiff brings nationwide class claims against GDS for its failure to properly filter such outdated information from reports it sells to resellers like The Leasing Desk. The only derogatory public-record information the FCRA permits to be reported after seven years are convictions of crimes, and the traffic violation GDS reported to The Leasing Desk is not one.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. Craig C. Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd., Ste. 1-A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com craig@clalegal.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com GONZO MARKETING: Faces Johnson Suit Over CSRs' Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GONZO MARKETING SERVICES, LLC d/b/a GMS CONNECT, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-60775-WPD (S.D. Fla., April 9, 2021) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Customer Service Representative (CSR) since approximately July 2020 and continues to work for the Defendant in the state of Florida. The Plaintiff claims that although he worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek throughout her employment with the Defendant, the Defendant refused to properly pay her lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, the Defendant allegedly failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action to recover damages against the Defendant, including overtime wages at the correct rate pursuant to the FLSA, an equal amount of liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Gonzo Marketing Services, LLC provides customer contact services to health plans, insurance companies and other commercial entities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Ave., Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Tel: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com npacheco@theleachfirm.com HEALTH NET: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Confidential Data ------------------------------------------------------------- J. DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., HEALTH NET, LLC, and ACCELLION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-02975 (N.D. Cal., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, breach of contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Confidentiality in Medical Information Act, the California HIV Disclosure Laws, and the Constitutional Right to Privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect the sensitive information of their customers following a data breach from December 2020 to January 2021. The Defendants' inaction to address the vulnerabilities of Accellion's File Transfer Appliance (FTA) software caused an unauthorized third party to access certain files and data of numerous customers of Accellion. The Defendants were well aware of the data security shortcomings in the FTA product. Nevertheless, Accellion continued to use FTA with its clients, putting Accellion's file transfer service clients and their clients' customers and employees at risk of being impacted by a breach, the suit says. Health Net of California, Inc. is an insurance company located in California. Health Net, LLC is a provider of health plans and services, headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Accellion, Inc. is a software company based in Palo Alto, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Matthew B. George, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and – Joel B. Strauss, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: jstrauss@kaplanfox.com HERRON RESIDENCE: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $5.5 Million --------------------------------------------------------------- Chelsey St-Pierre, writing for The Suburban, reports that residents and their families have reached a $5.5 million settlement with the Herron Residence management in a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Barbara Schneider whose mother Mary Schneider (93) died while residing at the Herron last April. It alleged inhumane and degrading maltreatment resulting from the management's failure to ensure continued and adequate care. Lawyer Arthur Wechsler, representing the plaintiffs, confirmed that the agreement was signed with Groupe Katasa representatives. Surviving residents who were living at the long-term care facility during the first wave of COVID, the estates of deceased residents and the next of kin of the deceased will share the settlement amount. Eligible parties to the class action are expected to receive payment by the end of 2021. The settlement is pending a judge's authorization of the agreement. A date is scheduled before a Quebec Superior Court judge on April 30. The 47 deaths that occurred at the Herron is at the centre of a coroner's inquest which has been delayed at the request of the Herron owners to fall 2021 as they are waiting to see if they will be facing criminal charges. Investigations are still in progress by the regional health authority (CIUSSS) as well as the Montreal police (SPVM). Groupe Katasa is no longer the owners of the Herron Residence but still runs six other residences for the elderly in Quebec. [GN] HIGHMARK INC: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Reed Ward, writing for TribLive, reports that a nurse who worked for Highmark Inc. reviewing insurance coverage authorization requests filed a federal lawsuit against the company on April 6, alleging that it failed to pay required overtime. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh, seeks class-action status and includes claims for violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. It does not say how many nurses might make up the class. Lynn Cole, who lives in Luzerne County, worked for Highmark as a care management nurse from June 2017 to Sept. 24, 2019, the lawsuit said. Highmark classified the nurses as exempt from overtime, the complaint said, but permitted Cole and other nurses in similar positions to work more than 40 hours per week. "Specifically, when plaintiff questioned her supervisor about not being compensated for working overtime . . .. plaintiff's supervisor informed her that because she was working in a salaried position, it was part of the job and that she needed to work as much as was required to get the work done," the lawsuit said. The class would include anyone who worked as a utilization management nurse, utilization review nurse, medical management nurse, nurse reviewer or care management nurse in the last three years, the complaint continued. Among the issues in the case, the lawsuit said, are whether Highmark failed to keep adequate records for all hours worked and whether its conduct was willful. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Colleen Ramage Johnston, notes that Highmark is among the 10 largest health insurers in the United States, serving 5.2 million people in Pennsylvania, Delaware and West Virginia. A message left with a spokesman for the company was not immediately returned late on April 6. [GN] HOPEWELL REDEVELOPMENT: Tenants Win Suit Over Utility Surcharges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emma North, writing for WRIC, reports that from June 2014 to September 2018, tenants of the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority were charged high utility surcharges after their utility allowances were not properly set. Following a class action lawsuit against the HRHA. those tenants have been awarded $220,000 and a waiver for certain charges. According to the Legal Aid Justice Center, a group of tenants won the lawsuit -- filed in April 2019 -- against the housing authority on April 5. U.S. District Judge Hannah M. Lauck of the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court approved the settlement. "Improperly implemented utility allowances are a common problem for public housing. As we reach the conclusion of this case, we will have been able to bring relief to public housing tenants across of Central Virginia, having previously addressed the matter with the other housing authorities as well," said Sylvia Jones, a Legal Aid Justice Center attorney for the plaintiff tenants. The settlement will be distributed among the involved tenants who were overcharged for utilities. In addition to the payment, tenants also had some of their gas and electric charges waived while the lawsuit was underway. A release from LAJC, says this saved them about $95,000. The lawsuit also negotiated a higher gas and electric allowance for the tenants, LAJC estimates this will save them $144,000 over the first three years. According to federal law, people living in public housing should not be charged over 30% of their income for rent and utilities. In order to keep monthly bills under that income percentage tenants are given utility allowances to cover their fees. Tenants at HRHA had not been given the correct allowances and were overcharged. "I brought this issue to the Legal Aid Justice Center over five years ago and I am glad we are finally getting justice," said Dorothy Flowers, a plaintiff and former HRHA resident in a LAJC release. Another former tenant quoted in the release, Natasha Brown, says the bills shouldn't be so complicated that people need help understanding them. "The old bills were nearly impossible to figure out and it led to my paying money I didn't owe," Brown said. "I am glad that no one will have to deal with that in the future." With the approval of the lawsuit, the HRHA will also be required to provide more notices and details about utilities to tenant. This will involve changes to notices, policies, billing statements and leases. HRHA will also be required to suspend years worth of gas and electricity charges. [GN] I LOVE THIS BAR: Class in Young FLSA Suit Conditionally Certified ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Amber Young, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. I Love This Bar LLC, d/b/a Park Street Cantina, et al., Defendants, Case No. 20cv-3971 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Sarah D. Morrison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification Named Plaintiff Young brought the suit as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., as amended ("FLSA"), and as a Rule 23 class action under Ohio's wage and hour laws. The Named Plaintiff is a former hourly-paid, tipped, non-exempt employee of Park Street Cantina, a nightclub in Columbus, Ohio. Granero Lounge, Short North Julep, and Callahan's Bar and Rooftop are likewise Columbus nightclubs. Mr. Michael owns the nightclub Defendants. The Named Plaintiff's August 2020 Complaint alleges that although she regularly worked more than 40 hours per week as a bartender, the Defendants willfully failed to pay her overtime. She claims that the Defendants willfully failed to notify her that they would take a tip credit from her wages and that the Defendants unlawfully retained some of her tips. Those allegations and related factual assertions form the basis for her unpaid overtime and unpaid minimum wage FLSA claims. Subsequently, Martin Vlas and Maxwell Holcomb each filed a consent form seeking to join the action as opt-in party plaintiffs. The Defendants denied all claims and Park Street asserted counterclaims for theft and violation of the faithless servant doctrine against the Named Plaintiff. The Named Plaintiff moved to dismiss both counterclaims which Park Street opposed the same day that it filed Amended Counterclaims. The Amended Counterclaims rendered the Named Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss moot. The Named Plaintiff subsequently moved to dismiss Park Street's Amended Counterclaims. After the Defendants lodged their opposition, the Named Plaintiff withdrew her second motion to dismiss in March 2021. The Named Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking conditional certification of the following FLSA collective class: "All current and former hourly tipped employees of Defendants during the three years preceding the filing of the Motion on Jan. 6, 2021 and continuing through the final disposition of the case." She supports her Motion with her own declaration as well as a declaration from Vlas. The declarants pertinently aver that they were: (i) employed by Park Street as hourly, non-exempt, tipped bartenders, with Vlas also working for Granero; (ii) not paid for overtime hours worked; (iii) not notified that the Defendants would take a tip credit; (iv) subject to the Defendants' managers' improperly retaining tips from the tip pool; and (v) not paid minimum wage. The Defendants' Opposition and a Reply followed. Judge Morrison determines that the Named Plaintiff has sustained her modest burden of establishing that she is similarly situated to proposed class members. The following class is conditionally certified as a FLSA collective under Section 216(b): "All current and former hourly tipped employees of the Defendants during the three years preceding Jan. 16, 2021 and continuing through the final disposition of the case." Next, the Judge determines that the Notice is accurate and informative and therefore approves same as well as the Consent to Join Form with one alteration -- the addition of Maxwell Holcomb's name at the end of the paragraph entitled "What is This Case About?" At this stage, a three-year lookback period will be utilized. Because the Named Plaintiff raises no issue about difficulty in locating potential collective members, and because a 45-day opt-in period "satisfies the Court's concern of balancing the need for speedy justice while at the same time allowing potential plaintiffs time to fully consider their options," the Notice will be adjusted to reflect a 45 day opt-in period. The Named Plaintiff wants to deliver the Notice and Consent Form to putative collective members via U.S. mail and e-mail. The Defendants do not object to those forms of delivery. The Judge therefore directs both U.S. mail and e-mail distribution of the Notice and Consent to Join Form. Based on the foregoing, Judge Morrison deemed as moot the Named Plaintiff's Dec. 9, 2020. She granted in part and denied in part the Named Plaintiff's Motion For Conditional Certification as specified. The Judge ordered the Defendants to provide the Named Plaintiff, within 14 days of her Opinion & Order, a roster of all potential opt-in plaintiffs that includes their full names, their dates of employment, their locations worked, job titles, their last known home addresses, and their personal email addresses. The Notice and Consent to Join Form will be sent to the potential opt-in plaintiffs within 14 days of receipt of the roster using their home and email addresses. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/vykm6zv from Leagle.com. INTERTEK USA: Faces Kirksey Suit Over Inspectors' Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIE KIRKSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERTEK USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01165 (S.D. Tex., April 9, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from approximately May 2019 until October 2020. Throughout his employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been misclassified by the Defendant as an independent contractor together with other similarly situated inspectors. Despite regularly working in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not pay them proper overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per week. Instead, the Defendant paid them straight time for overtime, the suit alleges. Intertek USA, Inc. provides testing, inspecting, and certifying products, construction and projects services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and – Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com JAMES FRANCO: Faces New Claims Amid Sexual Assault Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Rory Tingle, writing for Dailymail.com, reports that Charlyne Yi has accused James Franco of being a 'sexual predator' and claimed she was 'bribed' not to quit The Disaster Artist over sexual assault claims -- as she branded Seth Rogen his 'enabler'. The actress, who played designer Safowa Bright-Asare in the Oscar-nominated 2017 movie, posted on Instagram Thursday that she had tried to leave the film due to sexual assault claims against Franco, 42, who was director and lead actor. The 35-year-old said she tried to 'break legal contract' but the filmmakers instead promised her a bigger role, which Yi saw as an attempted bribe. 'I cried and told them that that was the exact opposite of what I wanted, that I didn't feel safe working with a f*****g sexual predator,' Yi wrote. 'They minimized and said Franco being a predator was so last year and that he changed… when I literally heard of him abusing new women that week.' Yi, previously appeared with Rogen in the 2007 comedy Knocked Up, claimed that Rogen, 38, whose production company Point Grey Pictures produced the film, was Franco's responsible for not stopping Franco's alleged misdemeanors. She continued: 'Seth Rogen was one of the producers on this film so he definitely knows about the bribe and why I quit. 'White men saying it's not their responsibility when holding Franco accountable, or when holding Seth Rogen and enablers accountable. 'Then whose responsibility is it? The women and children who have PTSD from Franco? Or the future targets of abuse?' On April 10, Yi posted a second statement on Instagram complaining that women 'did not feel safe' speaking out, blaming law enforcement and 'the media'. Dailymail.com has contacted representatives for both Franco and Rogen for comment. Franco has faced several allegations of sexual misconduct, including in 2017, when a 17-year-old British schoolgirl Lucy Clode shared messages between her and the then 35-year-old actor inviting her to his hotel room. The actor confirmed he had sent the messages and said he was guilty of 'bad judgement'. A year later, Franco's former girlfriend Violet Paley claimed he had forced her to perform oral sex in a car, a claim the actor denied. Meanwhile, in February, Franco reached a tentative settlement with two female students at his now-defunct Studio 4 acting school. Actresses and ex-students Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal alleged in a 2019 lawsuit that Franco coerced them into explicit sexual situations against their will, under the guise of it being part of an acting course. The Palo Alto star ran a master class on sex scenes where the incidents were said to have occurred by both women, prompting them to bring charges against him, but as of February 21 both dropped their claims with the opportunity to-refile in the future. Franco's school ran for three years (2014-2017) and had locations in both Los Angeles and New York. During the course of his sex scene class, it has been said that he pushed and intimidated his students to perform on-camera sex scenes -- some in an 'orgy type setting.' The women (both students in 2014) alleged that Franco said he would cast them in his upcoming films if they were to perform such explicit scenes, despite the fact that the situations went far beyond what was deemed acceptable on Hollywood film sets. Tither-Kaplan and two other women first aired their sexual misconduct allegations in 2018 in light of the #MeToo movement that swept Hollywood, just after Franco won a Golden Globe for his film The Disaster Artist. She tweeted, 'Hey James Franco, nice #timesup pin at the #GoldenGlobes, remember a few weeks ago when you told me the full nudity you had me do in two of your movies for $100/day wasn't exploitative because I signed a contract to do it? Times up on that!' In an interview on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Franco said the sexual misconduct stories swirling were highly inaccurate, adding 'If I've done something wrong, I will fix it. I have to.' In their initial 2019 lawsuit Tither-Kaplan and Gaal said that he, 'sought to create a pipeline of young women who were subjected to his personal and professional sexual exploitation in the name of education.' The ladies also alleged that Franco and his production company - RabbitBandini Productions - and Studio 4 partners Vince Jolivette and Jay Davis (who are listed in the lawsuit as defendants) were guilty of 'humiliating female students and actors.' Tither-Kaplan cited that on multiple occasions she had witnessed Franco removing vaginal guards, while Gaal claimed she was denied entry to a master class level of the sex scene class due to her concerns. The suit claimed Gaal was 'told by a male employee to 'grow thicker skin' and stop being so sensitive.' Franco's attorneys, called the claims 'false and inflammatory', and 'legally baseless,' adding that the class action suit was brought about with the intention of 'grabbing as much publicity as possible for attention-hungry Plaintiffs.' His team added that Tither-Kaplan had previously expressed gratitude for the opportunity to work with Franco. In a social media post she wrote, 'Thanks for censoring my nip jamesy. Looooveeee these maniacs.' In another she had written, 'James is a gem. I'm lucky to be part of this big ol weird fam.' James and his camp spoke out about her claims, saying that she and all students had signed waivers of consent. 'The casting director and others involved with those films have confirmed that all actresses, including Tither-Kaplan, were aware of the nudity scenes ahead of time, that they were constantly checking to make sure the actresses felt comfortable, that they signed nudity waivers, and that no one - including Tither-Kaplan - ever complained.' On February 11 both sides filed a joint status report in Los Angeles Superior Court telling the judge that a settlement had been reached between both parties, but the settlement had not been previously reported. The sides had reportedly been working towards a settlement for month's halting the lawsuit while they were in discussion; the settlement amount has not been publicized at this time. The agreement outlined that the women had dropped their individual claims and that their sexual exploitation allegations were being 'dismissed without prejudice,' meaning they could re-file in the future. Additionally, the document said that the fraud allegations brought by them would be 'subjected to limited release,' though no further detail was given in the report. He has kept a relatively low profile since the allegations first arose, and whether or not he will make a statement in lieu of the settlement news is unknown at this time. [GN] JDD INVESTMENT: Avila Sues Over Discrimination & Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case, ANA AVILA, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JDD INVESTMENT COMPANY, d/b/a McDonald's, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01917 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant around December 2018 as a crew member. The Plaintiff alleges that her manager Donald treated her less favorably than employees of non-Mexican ancestry by giving her heavier workload, being talked down to, being addressed in an aggressive manner, having objects thrown at her, and being yelled at for no reason. He added that Donald was allegedly under the influence of drugs while at work and would generally act aggressively toward the Plaintiff and other employees of Mexican ancestry. Although the Plaintiff and several employees of Mexican ancestry raised concerns with supervisors Sandy and Carolina on or about January 7, 2020 about Donald's conduct, the Defendant allegedly failed to take any remedial or corrective action and things escalated when Donald scared and/or threatened her for making complaints against him. Subsequently, the Plaintiff resorted to tendering her resignation as a result of the ongoing discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment and the Defendant's failure to take any remedial action, and due to her growing concerns for her safety, added the suit. The Plaintiff also asserts that despite regularly working around 45-50 hours per week, the Defendant denied her of her lawfully earned overtime wages of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for all hours she worked above 40 hours in a workweek. On behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action against the Defendant to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. JDD Investment Company d/b/a McDonald's operates fast food chain restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Fish, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. Thalia Pacheco, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East 5th Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Tel: (630) 355-7590 E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com kunze@fishlawfirm.com tpacheco@fishlawfirm.com JELD-WEN INC: 5th Circuit Allows Class Action Lawsuit to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Vass, writing for Door and Window Market, reports that after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a request by Jeld-Wen Inc. for a rehearing of an anti-trust ruling, U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. issued an order certifying a class of investors to proceed in a suit against the company. Investors in the company's publicly traded stock allege they bought at inflated prices. Filed in February 2020, the case alleges that Jeld-Wen misled investors through statements and omissions, by failing to disclose intentionally anticompetitive conduct that was later found to violate federal antitrust law. The company, along with other defendants, filed motions to dismiss those allegations, arguing they had no duty to disclose Jeld-Wen's actions. After denying those motions, Judge Gibney recently certified the class action suit, approving representation by Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as class counsel, with Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC serving as liaison counsel. "The plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3)," the judge's opinion states. The defendants, including Mark A. Beck, L. Brooks Mallard, Kirk S. Hachigan and Jeld-Wen CEO Gary S. Michel (labeled as individual defendants) and Jeld-Wen and Onex, opposed the class certification partly by suggesting that plaintiffs cannot "satisfy the predominance or typicality requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23." Those arguments fell short, the recent court opinion declared. A hearing was held March 4, 2021, after which the court certified all persons or entities who purchased Jeld-Wen's publicly traded stock between January 26, 2017, and October 15, 2018, to participate. The class excludes: the defendants; immediate family of any defendant; any person who acted as an officer or director for the involved companies amid the class period; any firm, trust, corporation or other entity in which any of the defendants currently has or previously had controlling interests; Jeld-Wen's or Onex's employee retirement and benefit plans, including participants or beneficiaries; and legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any of the excluded persons or entities. In the arguments against the class action suit, officials for Jeld-Wen previously said they did not make false statements, because they "accurately described their products' quality and their pricing strategy and because the competitiveness statements do not specifically refer to the doorskin market," court documents say. But Jeld-Wen's statements, combined with its failure to disclose anticompetitive conduct, "would have misled a reasonable investor about the nature of" its securities, a court memo states. Court documents point to a 5% drop in the company's stock price on October 9, 2018, following an opinion published October 5, 2018, by Judge Payne, detailing the company's anti-competitive behavior, ordering divestiture of one of its plants. That decrease was worsened by an announcement that the company expected to incur $76.5 million in liability, court documents say, after which the company also announced its then CEO L. Brooks Mallard would resign, leaving its stock to tumble by 19%. Plaintiffs allege that they purchased the company's stock at an inflated price, because defendants "lied about Jeld-Wen's anticompetitive conduct and the legal risks that conduct posed to Jeld-Wen." [GN] JUUL LABS: Faces Jenkins Suit Over E-Cigarette Products' Marketing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Jenkins, on behalf of his son, M.R.J., 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-02228 (N.D. Calif., March 30, 2021) arises from the Defendants production, promotion, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarette products. According to the complaint, seizing on the decline in cigarette consumption and the lax regulatory environment for e-cigarettes, Bowen, Monsees, and investors in their company sought to introduce nicotine to a whole new generation, with JLI as the dominant supplier. To achieve that common purpose, they knew they would need to create and market a product that would make nicotine cool again, without any of the stigma associated with cigarettes. With help from their early investors and board members, who include Nicholas Pritzker, Riaz Valani, and Huyoung Huh (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 suit says. The most recent scientific literature states that JUUL products allegedly 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, added the suit. JLI designs, manufactures, sells, markets, advertises, promotes and distributes JUUL e-cigarettes devices, JUUL pods and accessories. Prior to the formation of separate entities PAX Labs, Inc. and JLI in or around April 13 2017, JUUL designed, manufactured, sold, marketed, advertised, promoted, and distributed JUUL under the name PAX Labs, Inc. Altria is one of the world’s largest producers and marketers of tobacco products, manufacturing and selling combustible cigarettes for more than a century. Philip Morris is the largest cigarette company in the United States. Marlboro, the principal cigarette brand of Philip Morris, has been the largest selling cigarette brand in the United States for over 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rand P. Nolen, Esq. FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ, LLP 2800 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 4000 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 621-7944 Facsimile: (713) 621-9638 E-mail: rand_nolen@fleming-law.com - and - R. Keith Morgan, Esq. LALOR ABY & MORGAN, PLLC 230 Trace Colony Park Drive, Suite 4 Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 898-2000 Facsimile: (601) 326-9743 E-mail: kmorgan@lamattys.com KADMON HOLDINGS: Gainey McKenna Reminds of June 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired the securities of Kadmon between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the New Drug Application for belumosudil for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was incomplete and/or deficient; (2) the additional new data that the Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (3) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe; (4) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (5) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Kadmon during the Class Period should contact the Firm prior to the June 2, 2021 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] KADMON HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on April 7 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Kadmon Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: KDMN) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 2, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in KDMN: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/kadmon-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14438&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Kadmon Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Shareholders have until June 2, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the KDMN lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] KADMON HOLDINGS: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 11 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-01797, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Kadmon securities between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Kadmon securities during the Class Period, you have until June 2, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Kadmon is a biopharmaceutical company that discovers, develops, and commercializes small molecules and biologics primarily for the treatment of inflammatory and fibrotic diseases. The Company's lead product candidates include, among others, belumosudil (KD025), an orally administered selective inhibitor of the rho-associated coiled-coil kinase 2 ("ROCK2"), which is in Phase II clinical development for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease ("cGVHD"). On September 30, 2020, post-market, Kadmon announced the submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment of cGVHD (the "Belumosudil NDA") with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Then, on November 30, 2020, Kadmon announced the FDA's acceptance of the Belumosudil NDA, and that the FDA had assigned the NDA a Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date of May 30, 2021. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Belumosudil NDA was incomplete and/or deficient; (ii) the additional new data that the Company submitted in support of the Belumosudil NDA in response to an information request from the FDA materially altered the NDA submission; (iii) accordingly, the initial Belumosudil NDA submission lacked the degree of support that the Company had led investors to believe; (iv) accordingly, the FDA was likely to extend the PDUFA target action date to review the Belumosudil NDA; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 10, 2021, Kadmon issued a press release "announc[ing] that the [FDA] has extended the review period" for the Belumosudil NDA and that, "[i]n a notice received from the FDA on March 9, 2021, the Company was informed that the [PDUFA] goal date for its Priority Review of belumosudil has been extended to August 30, 2021." Kadmon advised investors that "[t]he FDA extended the PDUFA date to allow time to review additional information submitted by Kadmon in response to a recent FDA information request," and that "[t]he submission of the additional information has been determined by the FDA to constitute a major amendment to the NDA, resulting in an extension of the PDUFA date by three months." On this news, Kadmon's stock price fell $0.52 per share, or 10.57%, to close at $4.40 per share on March 11, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN] KADMON HOLDINGS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of June 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Kadmon Holdings, Inc. ("Kadmon" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KDMN) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between October 1, 2020 and March 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 2, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Kadmon submitted a New Drug Application ("NDA") for belumosudil for the treatment of cGVHD to the FDA that was incomplete and deficient. When the Company submitted additional data to the FDA in response to the agency's request, it materially changed the NDA submission. The FDA was likely to extend the Prescription Drug User Fee Act ("PDUFA") target action date to review the Company's NDA. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Kadmon, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. Contacts: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] KCI USA: Case Progression Deadlines in Palmer Suit Reinstated ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael D. Nelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska reinstates the case progression deadlines in the case, CATHERINE PALMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KCI USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:19CV3084 (D. Neb.). The matter is before the Court on the Joint Stipulation for the Reinstatement of Remaining Case Progression Deadlines. After review of the parties' joint stipulation, Magistrate Judge Nelson finds good cause to reinstate the case progression deadlines. Accordingly, he granted the Joint Stipulation. The second amended case progression order is amended as follows: 1) Motion to Certify a Class Action: a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action will be filed by May 10, 2021, in the absence of which any claim in the pleadings that it is a class action will be deemed abandoned, and the case will proceed, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had been filed and denied by the Court; b. The Defendant will file their response to the Plaintiff's class certification motion by June 9, 2021; and c. The Plaintiff will file her reply in support of motion for class certification by June 23, 2021; 2) The deadline for filing motions to exclude testimony on Daubert and related grounds is July 2, 2021; 3) The deadline for filing motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment is Sept. 13, 2021; 4) The parties will comply with all other stipulations and agreements recited in their Rule 26(f) planning report that are not inconsistent with this order; and 5) All requests for changes of deadlines or settings established herein will be directed to Magistrate Judge Nelson. Such requests will not be considered absent a showing of due diligence in the timely progression of this case and the recent development of circumstances, unanticipated prior to the filing of the motion, which require that additional time be allowed. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ykbmx533 from Leagle.com. KRAFT HEINZ: Huber Sues Over Pizza Bagels' Deceptive Front Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAITLYN HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00278-wmc (W.D. Wis., April 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's deceptive and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its pizza bagels under the Bagel Bites brand. The front label representations of the product include mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce but in reality, the product does not contain real mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce, as these foods are understood and expected by consumers. The Defendant also represented the product as real dairy which misleads consumers as to the quality of the product. The Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, says the suit. Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a food and beverage company headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com LA CARRETA: Settles Class Action Over 2018 Norovirus Outbreak ------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Balchunas, writing for ABCNews4, reports that more than two years after hundreds got sick, a Summerville restaurant may soon pay the price. A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against La Carreta Mexican Restaurant in Summerville. A DHEC investigation found nearly 300 customers got sick after eating at the restaurant in late November and early December of 2018. Those who got sick now have a chance to get compensated for it. Dozens have now joined the class action suit, including Amber Widener, who ABC News 4 interviewed in December 2018, after she got sick from dining at the Summerville restaurant. It was a weekend Widener will never forget. "Every hour on the hour I threw up like clockwork and it was just horrendous," Widener said. "By the end, I didn't have the energy hardly to get off the bathroom floor. It was terrible." Turns out, she wasn't alone. Hundreds of complaints were reported to DHEC. The agency said 290 people reported having symptoms related to a norovirus, a gastrointestinal illness. "I found out my sister-in-law got sick, a friend of mine, her husband and four children got sick, my other sister-in-law, neighbors and co-workers who don't even live in Summerville had come in during that brief time from like Wednesday to Monday or Tuesday and had eaten at La Carreta, and within 48 hours they were all sick," she said. Widener said she did seek medical attention while sick, adding a doctor prescribed her anti-nausea medication. She said it's not about the money, she joined the lawsuit out of principle. She said La Carreta stayed open despite hearing multiple complaints for days. "I found out from other people who had gotten sick that they had contacted La Carreta before I ate there," said Widener. "They had been told over and over and over and over again and didn't do anything about it. So, that's why we've never been back, and we will never go back and that was very sad because we love that place. We ate there for, you know, 16, 17 years on an almost weekly basis." It's unclear how many people have joined the class action lawsuit up to this point. There's still time for those who think they got sick to join it. The deadline to file a claim is June 1, 2021. According to the settlement filing, claimants who can provide documented evidence of medical treatment are eligible to receive $5,000 or more. Those who did not seek medical attention are still eligible to receive compensation, but the amount varies depending on how many claimants end up joining the case. In a 2019 filing, La Carreta denied the illnesses came from food consumed at its restaurant. ABC News 4 reached out to the restaurant's attorney, but did not immediately receive a response. For more information on the class action lawsuit, visit the website summervillefoodpoisoning.com [GN] LASIK MD: Quebec Court Tosses Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Alexandra Mae Jones, writing for CTVNews.ca, reports that a proposed class-action lawsuit brought against Lasik MD by a Canadian in 2019 has been rejected by a Quebec court, which ruled that the proposed class action was prescribed and was not appropriate for the circumstances of the case. Christopher Ouellet, the plaintiff in question, launched the legal action years after he experienced a rare outcome following Lasik eye surgery in 2015: unrelenting, burning pain in his eyes. "It completely ruined my life," Ouellet told CTV News in 2019. "It destroyed everything. It made me lose my job. It made me lose the things I like to do in life." He was diagnosed in 2016 with corneal neuralgia, a rare condition in which damaged nerves in the cornea cause severe pain. It is frequently misdiagnosed or dismissed as merely dry eye, and can have devastating life consequences. Although negative outcomes from Lasik eye surgery are extremely rare, occurring in less than one per cent of patients according to Lasik MD, they have been reported before. Lasik MD added the risk of corneal neuralgia to some consent forms after a CTV News/W5 investigation in 2018 that looked into patients who had experienced chronic pain after eye surgeries. In legal filings, Ouellet alleged that Lasik MD did not properly inform him of the risks of the surgery beforehand, and that his surgeon did not discuss the consent form with him. He was seeking damages for those who suffered chronic pain as a result of Lasik surgery done between 2009 and 2018. A class-action lawsuit is a particular type of lawsuit where a group of people, who are represented by one member or some members of that group, sue another party with the understanding that the class of people have been impacted in a similar way. The Superior Court of Quebec wrote in their decision last November that their dismissal came down to two major reasons: the lawsuit was not filed within the three year time period that applies and the court believed the situation was not appropriate for a class-action lawsuit. Their first point was that Ouellet had experienced post-surgery pain since 2015 and the three year period should start then. The class action lawyer argued that since Ouellet's diagnosis came in 2016, that should serve as the start date for the three year time limit on filing, but the court disagreed. "The take away, from Mr. Ouellet's own application, is that the underlying issue is post-surgical chronic pain. Corneal neuralgia is but one name for it," the judgment reads. In terms of the case being appropriate for a class-action lawsuit, the decision found there was no common question and stated that one of the reasons it would be difficult to apply this case more broadly was because it hinges on whether Ouellet was not properly informed of the risks. To apply that in a class-action lawsuit, the court said would require it to look into the discussions between every patient and their Lasik surgeons across the country, and "up to 66 ophthalmologists performed laser surgery on behalf of Lasik" in the specified time period. When it comes to written consent forms and information alone, the decision stated that the defence had said there were up to 22 different consent forms given to patients depending on their medical histories. "Therefore, it is clear that the adequacy of the information will be different for every patient, regardless of the facts in the written materials or information," the decision stated. They also said that the consent form Ouellet was given did raise the possibility of chronic pain. The court added that if Ouellet's specific surgeon had failed to verbally disclose the risk of post-surgery chronic pain to Ouellet, as he alleges, "a negative answer to the question does not advance the debate in a way that renders a class action an appropriate recourse." Although others joined Ouellet's legal proceeding after it was announced, with many coming forward to share their experiences with debilitating eye pain after Ouellet and other Canadians spoke up, the court stated in its decision that since "the consent forms contain a similar clause giving exclusive competence to the courts of the province where the surgery has been performed," the actual number of people covered in the lawsuit in Quebec is a smaller cohort than initially believed. While around 1,197 people responded to a website created by Ouellet and his lawyer, out of those, only around 10 people suffering from corneal neuralgia are permanent residents of Quebec and it's unknown whether they were informed of the risks of the surgery beforehand. "The issue of the number of potential class members whose claim is within applicable time limits is also an element that might affect whether there is a viable group. Save for exceptional situations, a group cannot be open-ended," the court stated. The decision stated that Ouellet's case may have grounds for a personal lawsuit, had he not commenced his lawsuit too late. In a statement to CTV News regarding the court's decision, Lasik MD reiterated that complications from Lasik are rare, and that "in the vast majority of cases, these post-surgical complications are treatable." "Our stringent approach and established processes ensure that each patient is fully educated on the potential risks, benefits and possible side effects prior to any procedure, including the very rare risk of chronic pain, a condition not exclusive to eye surgery. While the risks associated with LASIK are extremely low, it is nonetheless very unfortunate when a rare complication occurs," Dr. Mark Cohen, co-founder and national medical director of Lasik MD, said in the statement. [GN] LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on April 6 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Leidos Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: LDOS) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: May 4, 2020 and February 23, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 3, 2021 Learn more about your recoverable losses in LDOS: http://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/leidos-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?id=14405&from=5 The filed complaint alleges that Leidos Holdings, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the purported benefits of the Company's acquisition of L3Harris' Security Detection & Automation businesses were significantly overstated; (2) Leidos' products suffered from numerous product defects, including faulty explosive detection systems at airports, ports, and borders; (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were significantly overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Shareholders have until May 3, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For additional information about the LDOS lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click the link above. J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] LENOVO US: Loses Bid to Split Class, Merits Discovery in Singh Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NEHA SINGH, et al. v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., Civil Action No. CCB-20-1082 (D. Md.), Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied Lenovo's motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery. The putative class action raises claims related to a line of "Yoga" computer devices manufactured and sold by Lenovo. The Plaintiffs allege Lenovo knowingly sold the Yoga devices with defective hinges in violation of various states' consumer fraud statutes and in breach of express and implied warranties. Before the Court is Lenovo's motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery. Judge Blake notes that whether to order bifurcation, during discovery or at trial, is an issue squarely within the broad discretion of the district court. She says, generally, "bifurcation of discovery is the exception, rather than the rule, and it is clear that in most instances, regular -- that is, unbifurcated -- discovery is more efficient." At the same time, in the class action context, where a district court must determine whether an action should be certified as a class action at an "early practicable time," Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A), the Manual for Complex Litigation states that "discovery relevant only to the merits delays the certification decision and may ultimately be unnecessary" if, for example, individual claims are unlikely to proceed if a class is not certified. Thus, where merits bifurcation would cause significant duplication and expense, discovery should proceed concurrently. The parties agree that in ruling on the motion, the Court is to consider (1) the overlap between individual and class discovery, (2) whether bifurcation will promote Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23's requirement that certification be decided "at an early practicable time," (3) judicial economy, and (4) any prejudice reasonably likely to flow from the grant or denial of a stay of class discovery. Judge Blake finds that the rigorous analysis at the class certification stage would require that the Court analyze the causes of action alleged by the Plaintiffs to determine whether they are susceptible to classwide proof. While expert testimony may be able to establish a defect, it is likely the Plaintiffs will need access to some of Lenovo's records in order to determine whether Lenovo knew of the defect and sold the product anyway. It is difficult to see a way to cleanly and efficiently disentangle these inquiries from the merits of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Judge also finds that if she were to bifurcate discovery, there is no indication that the timeline for certifying a class would advance. She says it is not a case where the parties have vastly different proposals as to the timeline for certification. Lenovo originally had the less optimistic view of how long it would take to complete discovery in advance of class certification, and the plaintiffs accommodated Lenovo's desire to brief class certification in March 2022. The Judge does not read the Plaintiffs' response to suggest that all merits discovery must conclude prior to briefing class certification; rather, they represent that their discovery needs are not the bottleneck. The parties have different ideas about what constitutes merits discovery and what constitutes class discovery. This confirms, as some courts have held, that the line between the two is murky and that the court would be required to expend resources drawing those lines for the parties as disputes arise. And, the arbitrary insistence on distinguishing between class and merits discovery may "thwart the informed judicial assessment that current class certification practice emphasizes. Lastly, Judge Blake finds that any prejudice to Lenovo that may result from not bifurcating discovery may be minimized or negated by avoiding disputes over what constitutes class discovery and -- should a class be certified -- by the continuing relevance of merits discovery beyond the class certification stage. Given the enmeshed nature of class and merits discovery, the unlikelihood that the date of a class certification decision will advance, the expected benefits to judicial economy, and the minimal prejudice it is hoped will result, Judge Blake declines to draw bright lines by ordering bifurcation. But neither is she ordering that all merits discovery be completed prior to the class certification determination; indeed, it may be efficient to defer some merits discovery where it does not plausibly overlap with any of the Rule 23 certification requirements. The counsel are expected, as always, to collaborate and to look to proportionality as their guiding principle. For the reasons she stated, Judge Blake denied the Defendant's motion to bifurcate class and merits discovery. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ce5mv4 from Leagle.com. LIMANI 51: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gjorevski Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- BORCHE GJOREVSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIMANI 51, LLC, d/b/a LIMANI and FRANCO SUKAJ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid regular and overtime wages due to off-the-clock work, unpaid minimum wage due to invalid tip credit, and misappropriated tips in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a bartender at the Limani restaurant located at 45 Rockefeller Plaza, New York, New York from January 2, 2016 through the present date. Limani 51, LLC is an owner and operator of a restaurant under the name Limani, with a principal place of business located at 630 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (718) 971-0326 Facsimile: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 17 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Lordstown Motors Corp. (NASDAQ: RIDE) ("Lordstown") f/k/a DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. (NASDAQ: DPHC) ("DiamondPeak") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Lordstown securities between August 3, 2020 and March 24, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 17, 2021 Website: https://www.ktmc.com/lordstown-motors-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=lordstown Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435 Toll free (844) 887-9500 Lordstown is an automotive company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. Lordstown's purported flagship vehicle is the "Endurance," an electric full-size pickup truck. DiamondPeak was structured as a special purpose acquisition company. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Lordstown's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (2) many of the would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand for the Endurance; (3) Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (4) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (5) as a result, Lordstown's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Lordstown investors may, no later than May 17, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of May 17 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on April 6 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Lordstown Motors Corp. ("Lordstown") (NASDAQ:RIDE; RIDEW) between August 3, 2020 and March 24, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired warrants to purchase the stock of Lordstown or its predecessor DiamondPeak Holdings Corp. ("DiamondPeak," collectively, "Lordstown" or the "Company"), as well as holders of DiamondPeak stock entitled to participate in the August 22, 2020 shareholder vote on the merger with Lordstown. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lordstown securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel in the action. Lordstown investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358. Background on the Lordstown Securities Class Litigation Lordstown, headquartered in Lordstown, Ohio, is an automotive company founded for the purpose of developing and manufacturing light duty electric trucks targeted for sale to fleet customers. Its flagship product, the Endurance, is an electric pickup truck. The actions claim that, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the number of Endurance pre-orders was fabricated, and thus inflated, and did not accurately reflect demand; (2) purported customers lacked the means to fulfill their pre-orders; (3) and the Company faced undisclosed production hurdles that would continue to delay production and delivery of the Endurance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about Lordstown's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 12, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research reported that "Lordstown is an electric vehicle SPAC with no revenue and no sellable product, which we believe has misled investors on both its demand and production capabilities." According to the report, while Lordstown consistently pointed to its book of 100,000 pre-orders as proof of strong demand for its Endurance pickup truck, Hindenburg's "conversations with former employees, business partners and an extensive document review show that the company's orders are largely fictitious and used as a prop to raise capital and confer legitimacy." On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell approximately 16.5%, from its closing price of $17.71 on March 11, 2021, to close at $14.78 on March 12, 2021. On March 17, 2021, following the close of the market, Lordstown's CEO, defendant Stephen Burns, revealed that the Company was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, a disclosure absent from its fourth quarter and 2020 earnings reports. On this news, the price of Lordstown common stock fell approximately 14%, from its closing price of $15.09 on March 17, 2021, to close at $13.01 on March 18, 2021. The next day Burns announced on national television that "We never said we had orders. We don't have a product yet so by definition you can't have orders." On March 24, 2021, Hindenburg Research published additional pictures of the Endurance truck after it broke down and had to be loaded onto a tow truck during the filming of a commercial that was aired just days before Lordstown became a publicly traded company. On this news Lordstown's stock price fell another $1.21 per share, or 9.61%, from its close of $12.59 on March 23, 2021, to close at $11.38 on March 24, 2021. About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting corporate responsibility. The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America." For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's representation of investors, please visit https://www.lieffcabraser.com/. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contact for Media Inquiries Only Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN] MARY SCHIMDT CAMPBELL: Downing Files ADA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mary Schmidt Campbell, et al. The case is styled as Meghan Downing, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mary Schmidt Campbell, Megan B. Chernin, James Cuno, Bruce W. Dunlevie, Drew G. Faust, Maria Hummer-Tuttle, Pamela J. Joyner, David L. Lee, Robert W. Lovelace, Thelma Melndez De Santa Ana, Kavita Singh, Ronald P. Spogli, John Studzinski, Anne M. Sweeney, as trustee on behalf of The J. Paul Getty Trust; Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-03127-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mary Schmidt Campbell -- https://www.spelman.edu/about-us/office-of-the-president/biography -- is an American academic administrator, professor, author, scholar of art and culture, and is the President of Spelman College.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Jasmine Behroozan, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com MATADOR PRODUCTION: Bragg Class Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, COREY BRAGG, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY, and MATADOR PRODUCTION COMPANY v. PLASTER & WALD CONSULTING CORP., Case No. 2:20-cv-00054-KWR-KRS (D.N.M.), Judge Kea W. Riggs of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. The order is pursuant to the parties' Rule 41 Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice. The parties will bear their own fees and costs. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/pk8kdcat from Leagle.com. MDL 2670: EPPs Can't File Overlength Brief in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, IN RE PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST CLASS ACTION LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: AS MOOT End Payer Plaintiffs, Case No. 15-md-2670-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal.), Judge Janis L. Sammartino of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied as moot the joint motion seeking leave for End Payer Plaintiffs to file an overlength brief in support of their motion for preliminary approval of partial class action settlement. The EPPs have already filed a brief in compliance with the page limitations of Civil Local Rule 7.1. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tj572npy from Leagle.com. MDL 30051: Belviq-Related Suit Moved to US Judicial Panel --------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as IN RE: Belviq (Lorcaserin HCI) Products Liability Litigation filed by Plaintiffs Stephanie Fuller, Robert Fuller, Deborah Steinman, Reuben Steinman, Mildred Smith, Pamela Puskas, Michael Puskas, Jennifer Reynolds-Sitzer, Kenneth Sitzer, Deborah Crawford, Bradley Trey Crawford, Maryann Kaylor and Willard Kaylor, Jr. was transferred from Louisiana Eastern District Court(2:20-cv-01675), New York Eastern District Court(1:20-cv-02608), Alabama Northern District Court(5:20-cv-01278), Oklahoma Western District Court(5:20-cv-00868), Louisiana Western District Court(5:21-cv-00058), New York Northern District Court(1:21-cv-00145), New Jersey District Court(2:21-cv-02439), Florida Middle District Court(8:21-cv-00831),(6:21-cv-00615),(6:21-cv-00406),(5:21-cv-00210), Missouri Western District Court(4:20-cv-00762), New York Southern District(7:20-cv-02600), to the U.S. District Court for the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 12, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. MDL No. 30051:21-cv-00505 to the proceeding.[BN] MELTON TRUCK: Williams Suit Transferred to N.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Monica Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Melton Truck Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00838, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00184-TCK-CDL to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Melton Truck Lines -- https://meltontruck.com/ -- is one of the nation's leading flatbed trucking companies with a large and growing fleet of modern, safe, and well-maintained equipment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 The Defendant is represented by: Mark S. Eisen, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP 71 South Wacker Drive 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 212-4956 Fax: (312) 767-9192 MERCEDES-BENZ: Hagens Berman Files Defeat Device Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- LawFuel reports that Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit against Mercedes stating the automaker knowingly programmed its Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles to emit illegal, dangerous levels of nitrogen oxide (NOx) in virtually all real world driving conditions and contain a "defeat device" used to cheat testing. Testing at highway speeds, at low temperatures, and at variable speeds, indicate a systemic failure to meet emissions standards. Low temperature testing at highway speeds for example, produced emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions standard. The lawsuit adds that testing at low temperatures at variable speeds produced emissions as high as 30.8 times the standard. "In virtually every road test the emissions were hardly as Mercedes promised as ‘the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel . . .' Mercedes vehicles do not meet emission standards in virtually all real world driving conditions," the complaint states. The lawsuit alleges that the following Mercedes models powered by BlueTEC diesel-fueled engines are affected by the unlawful, unfair, deceptive and otherwise defective emission controls utilized by Mercedes. Affected vehicles include: Mercedes ML 320 Mercedes ML 350 Mercedes GL 320 Mercedes E250 Mercedes E320 Mercedes S350 Mercedes R320 Mercedes E Class Mercedes GL Class Mercedes ML Class Mercedes R Class Mercedes S Class Mercedes GLK Class Mercedes GLE Class Mercedes Sprinter The original suit filed Feb. 18, 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey accuses Mercedes of deceiving consumers with false representations of its BlueTEC vehicles, which it marketed as "the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel" with "ultra-low emissions, high fuel economy and responsive performance" that emits "up to 30% lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline." Attorneys representing vehicle owners sought relief for those who purchased the affected vehicles, including injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement program and restitution including either recovery of the purchase price or overpayment or diminution in value due to Mercedes' misleading statements and omissions regarding the emission levels of its Clean Diesel BlueTEC vehicles. A $700 million settlement in the matter is pending the notice phase for eventual distribution to class members. How does the Mercedes BlueTEC emissions system work? – Initial reduction of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) performed by the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) system. – A diesel oxidation catalyst reduces the amounts of carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbons (HC) released from the exhaust and helps keep the particulate trap clean. – A particulate filter traps and stores soot particles. The diesel oxidation catalyst upstream helps to remove the particles from the particulate trap, though the engine will occasionally remove excessive particulate buildup by raising the exhaust temperature. – In some older model vehicles, a NOx storage catalyst will be used to perform the final removal of NOx from the exhaust before it exits the tailpipe.. – The vast majority of BlueTEC-equipped Mercedes in the US make use of a Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalytic converter (instead of the NOx storage catalyst) to convert the remaining nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and water; so-called diesel exhaust fluid (or "DEF," a solution of urea and water) is injected into the exhaust gas stream to enable the conversion. In order to prevent vehicles from breaking emissions regulations, the engine may go into a limp-home-mode if the DEF tank is depleted; drivers are instructed to keep the tank refilled as necessary. Some commercial vehicles are equipped with a request or inhibit switch which allows the DEF injection to be "postponed" as it can reduce power output and increase temperatures temporarily; if the vehicle is climbing a grade, for example, it may be necessary to delay the cycle. According to the complaint, diesel engines pose a particularly difficult challenge to the environment because they have trade-off between power, fuel efficiency and emissions: the greater the power and fuel efficiency, the dirtier and more harmful the emissions. "Car manufacturers have struggled to produce diesel engines that have high power and desirable fuel efficiency but also cleaner emissions," reads the complaint. "Mercedes' response to the challenge has been the BlueTEC diesel engine." Compared to gasoline engines, diesel engines generally produce greater torque, low-end power, better drivability and much higher fuel efficiency. But these benefits come at the cost of much dirtier and more harmful emissions, including NOx, which include a variety of nitrogen and oxygen chemical compounds that only form at high temperatures. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Bagby Sues Over Misleading Debt Collection Letters ------------------------------------------------------------------ SHANIECE BAGBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01885 (E.D. Pa., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, Defendant Midland Credit Management (MCM) sent a misleading debt collection letter to the Plaintiff and Class members on behalf of Defendant Midland Funding. The letter failed to adequately explain the third payment option provided by the Defendants which could result in two different possible interpretations. By failing to explain whether the third payment option is a settlement option or a full pay option, the letter is false, deceptive and misleading, the suit alleges. Midland Credit Management, Inc. is a debt collection firm, headquartered in San Diego, California. Midland Funding LLC is a debt collection firm, headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Blvd., Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: White Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al. The case is styled as William White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:21-cv-10914-LJM-KGA (E.D. Mich., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com MLC NOMINEES: NAB MySuper Class Action Moved to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Williamson, writing for Financial Standard, reports that Maurice Blackburn's class action against MLC Nominees and NULIS Nominees has moved to the Federal Court, following a decision late last year. The class action brought by Maurice Blackburn against MLC Nominees and NULIS in January 2020 on behalf of 330,000 MasterKey members accuses the super trustees of breaching their duties by delaying the transition of accounts to cheaper MySuper products. On 18 December 2020, the Supreme Court of Victoria ruled the case invalid. A spokesperson for Maurice Blackburn confirmed the case has now been filed in the Federal Court. At the time, the judge determined that claims that members had suffered a loss under Section 55(3) of the SIS Act were not valid as, among other things, "loss and damage does not extend to prospective loss". The lead plaintiff claims a loss was suffered in the form of higher fees and lower investment returns, and a consequential reduction in the amount he and members of the class action have received or can expect to receive from interest in the funds. "What s 55(3) of the SIS Act provides is that a person who suffers loss or damage as a result of conduct of another person, in contravention of Sections 55(1), may recover the amount of the loss or damage by action against that other person, or against any person involved in the contravention," documents read. "The plaintiff has not suffered loss or damage, notwithstanding that his expectation -- that he may suffer loss or damage in the future -- could be legitimate." A spokesperson for NAB told Financial Standard: "As the matter is before the courts, we are unable to provide further comment." [GN] MULTIPLAN CORP: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP on April 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of MultiPlan Corporation f/k/a Churchill Capital Corp. III ("Churchill III") (NYSE: MPLN) securities during the period of July 12, 2020 through November 10, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period") and all holders of Churchill III Class A common stock entitled to vote on Churchill III's merger with and acquisition of Polaris Parent Corp. and its consolidated subsidiaries (collectively, "MultiPlan"), which merger was consummated in October 2020 (the "Merger"). The class action, filed in the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York, is captioned Paradis v. MultiPlan Corporation, et al., No. 21-cv-01853. Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Churchill III securities during the Class Period or that was entitled to vote on the Merger to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing this class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate this class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of this class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 6, 2021. If you would like to discuss this class action lawsuit or obtain more information about your rights or interests, you are encouraged to contact Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by e-mailing Jack G. Fruchter (JFruchter@aftlaw.com) or Sean M. Handron-O'Brien (SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com). You may also call and leave a message at (212) 279-5050. This class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) MultiPlan was losing tens of millions of dollars in sales and revenues to Naviguard, a competitor created by one of MultiPlan's largest customers, UnitedHealthcare, which threatened up to 35% of MultiPlan's sales and 80% of its levered cash flows by 2022; (b) sales and revenue declines in the quarters leading up to the Merger were not due to "idiosyncratic" customer behaviors as represented, but rather due to a fundamental deterioration in demand for MultiPlan's services and increased competition, as payors developed competing services and sought alternatives to eliminating excessive healthcare costs; (c) MultiPlan was facing significant pricing pressures for its services and had been forced to materially reduce its take rate in the lead up to the Merger by insurers, who had expressed dissatisfaction with the price and quality of MultiPlan's services and balanced billing practices, causing MultiPlan to cut its take rate by up to half in some cases; (d) as a result, MultiPlan was set to continue to suffer from revenues and earnings declines, increased competition and deteriorating pricing dynamics following the Merger; (e) consequently, MultiPlan was forced to seek continued revenue growth and to improve its competitive positioning through pricey acquisitions, including through the purchase of the healthcare technology company HST for $140 million at a premium price from a former MultiPlan executive only one month after the Merger; and (f) as such, Churchill III investors had grossly overpaid for the acquisition of MultiPlan in the Merger, and MultiPlan's business was worth far less than represented to investors. On November 11, 2020, only a month after the Merger, Muddy Waters published a report titled "MultiPlan: Private Equity Necrophilia Meets The Great 2020 Money Grab." Among other things, Muddy Waters' report revealed that MultiPlan was in the process of losing its largest client, UnitedHealthcare, which was estimated to cost MultiPlan up to 35% of its revenues and 80% of its levered free cash flow within two years. On this news, the price of Churchill III Class A common stock fell to a low of just $6.12 per share, or nearly 40% below the price at which shareholders could have redeemed their shares at the time of the shareholder vote on the Merger. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP (www.aftlaw.com) is a law firm based in New York and maintaining an office in California. The firm's attorneys have extensive experience litigating on behalf of shareholders and consumers in class action litigations involving corporate misconduct. The firm has also been ranked among the leading law firms in terms of results obtained and recoveries achieved for shareholders. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP Jack G. Fruchter Sean M. Handron-O'Brien 450 Seventh Avenue, 38th Floor New York, NY 10123 JFruchter@aftlaw.com SHandronobrien@aftlaw.com [GN] NAVISTAR INC: King & Spalding Discusses Seventh Circuit Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on March 11, 2021, the Seventh Circuit held that when a district court delineates clear instructions for how class members can opt out of a class action settlement, a class member's continued prosecution of claims in parallel litigation does not provide proper notice of their intent to be excluded from the binding settlement. The Navistar court declined to adopt the "reasonable indication" standard for opting out of a class action settlement -— a test previously endorsed by the Second and Tenth Circuits -- on the grounds that such a standard would be impractical and impossible for district courts to administer. However, when a district court has not issued detailed instructions concerning the opt-out process, a judge is free to accept any "reasonable indication" of class members' desire to opt out. A class of truck owners sued Navistar for selling trucks with allegedly defective engines. The court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement in June 2019. Prior to approving the settlement, the district court outlined a detailed opt-out procedure for class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement. Two members of the class (collectively "Drasc"), who had brought a separate suit in Ohio state court, did not follow the opt out procedures outlined by the district court. After the district court entered a final judgment implementing the settlement and ending the litigation, Drasc moved to intervene and argued it should not be bound by the settlement because (1) it never received class notice and (2) the court should deem Drasc's ongoing litigation in Ohio a "reasonable indication" of its desire to opt out. With respect to Drasc's first argument, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that Drasc had actual knowledge of the need to opt out and could not show excusable neglect justifying extension of the opt-out deadline: First, two first-class letters containing class notice had been sent to Drasc. While Drasc contended that the letters were not in its files and its president could not recall receiving them, the court held that "mailing is evidence of receipt" and "a disclaimer of memory does not refute receipt." Second, Drasc's lawyers in the Ohio suit had actual notice of the settlement and even sent a letter to Navistar's counsel the day after the preliminary hearing. Further, Drasc's lawyers "must have known about the need to opt out" because "no modern lawyer is unaware of the procedures for managing class actions." In the alternative, Drasc argued that its continued suit against Navistar in Ohio state court should suffice as "reasonable indication" to the district court that Drasc intended to opt out. The "reasonable indication" standard arises from the lack of specificity in the text of Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(v), which provides that "the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion." Both the Second and Tenth Circuits have adopted reasoning from Wright & Miller that the Rule provides district courts with "considerable flexibility in determining what constitutes an effective expression of a class member's desire to exclude himself and any written evidence of it should suffice." See In re Four Seasons Securities Laws Litigation, 493 F.2d 1288, 1291 (10th Cir. 1974); Plummer v. Chemical Bank, 668 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1982). The Seventh Circuit noted, however, that neither the Tenth nor Second Circuits considered what should happen when the district court issues a more precise directive to class members and insists that it be followed. It was in this distinction that the Navistar court rested its opinion. When a district court has not provided instructions to class members about how to opt out, "the judge is free to accept as adequate any ‘reasonable indication' of such desire.'" When, however, a district judge has specified "in excruciating detail" how opting out is to be accomplished, as the district court in Navistar had done, a judge is not required to accept a different means of opt out. The court enumerated several reasons why adopting the "reasonable indication" standard would be impractical and inefficient: First, the standard would improperly allow class members to engage in wait-and-see behavior, permitting a class member to collect more than a suit's "actuarial value" based on hindsight determinations concerning which suit provided a larger recovery. Instead of permitting such "one-way interventions," courts should require class members to "make an irrevocable choice: take their share of whatever the class receives, or take the outcome of a separate suit." Second, the "reasonable indication" standard would render class actions "difficult if not impossible to administer," given that classes may have thousands or even millions of members. Third, rejecting the "reasonable indication" standard in favor of a more predictable and mechanical opt-out procedure will help inform a district court's decision concerning whether to approve a settlement "as a substantive matter," since the court will have greater clarity concerning the number of opt-outs (and whether the settlement value should be reduced accordingly). The decision will help class action defendants in the Seventh Circuit preserve the binding character of class settlements and protect against collateral attacks from class members in parallel and follow-on suits. It also underscores that class litigants should draft proposed preliminary approval orders that provide clear and explicit rules concerning opt-out procedures and timing, with no exceptions. Otherwise, district courts will have greater leeway to permit belated opt-outs under a "reasonable indication" standard. The case is In the Matter of Navistar Maxxforce Engines Mktg, Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig., and the opinion is available here. [GN] NEW YORK TEAMSTERS: Carlisle Suit Moved From S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled ROBERT CARLISLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, JOHN BULGARO, BRIAN K. HAMMOND, PAUL A. MARKWITZ, GEORGE F. HARRIGAN, MARK D. MAY, MICHAEL S. SCALZO, SR., ROBERT SCHAEFFER, MARK GLADFELTER, SAMUEL D. PILGER, DANIEL W. SCHMIDT, TOM J. VENTURA, MEKETA INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., and HORIZON ACTUARIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-08793, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on April 23, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of New York assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-00455-TJM-DJS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by failing to: (1) act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Plan), (2) act with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under circumstances, (3) diversify the investments of the Plan so as to minimize the risk of large losses, and (4) act in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the Plan. As a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, the Plaintiff and other participants and beneficiaries of the Plan suffered losses. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund is a company that operates as a pension plan based in New York. Meketa Investment Group, Inc. is an investment consulting and advisory firm based in Massachusetts. Horizon Actuarial Services, LLC is a consulting firm, headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leslie A. Blau, Esq. BLAU & MALMFELDT 566 West Adams Street, Suite 600 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 443-1600 Facsimile: (312) 443-1665 E-mail: blaulaw@gmail.com - and – Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: steveschwartz@chimicles.com - and – Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Esq. Ips Emily L. Skaug, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 201 Wilmington, DE 19808 NEW YORK, NY: Open Streets Opponents Mull Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- StreetsBlog reports that the mayor's signature effort to bring car-free outdoor space to COVID-stricken neighborhoods last year is increasingly looking like it will collapse unless city officials do something to assert authority over a program that has left volunteers beaten, harassed, uncompensated and just plain exhausted. Consider what's happened in just the last few days: An open streets volunteer was attacked by a car owner in North Brooklyn. Open streets opponents are discussing in private chat rooms whether they can apply to run an open street -- and then simply not put out the barricades that deter drivers. Equipment paid for by volunteers in North Brooklyn was vandalized and destroyed, and the open streets program in the Greenpoint part of the neighborhood was suspended. Two Department of Transportation officials were so viciously berated by open streets opponents in Greenpoint that they withdrew from a meeting. Some open streets opponents have joined forces and are discussing a class-action lawsuit that will argue that the city is violating drivers' rights by removing thru-traffic from a tiny number of streets. Several groups of open streets opponents are circulating petitions with inaccurate information to suggest that open streets are only supported by a fringe of the neighborhood (one petition, in North Brooklyn, even claims that 1,000 parking spaces are going to be eliminated because of the open streets program, and that roadways are less safe when drivers don't have access to them, neither of which is accurate). Taken all together, it combines to a "program" that is not a program at all, but a collection of hastily assembled volunteer groups struggling mightily to prop up an open space initiative that itself was hastily assembled at the start of the pandemic last year. The pro-open streets petitions (here's one from TransAlt and here's an independent one) generally advocate for the program in the same way that the de Blasio administration has championed it: as an indispensable open space program that has made our city better. But there's a fatal flaw: the mayor says that open, car-free space adds to New Yorkers' quality of life whether there is a pandemic or not, but he has not revealed the details of what his "permanent" open streets program will look like -- and opponents are filling the chasm of leadership by questioning why streets need to be set aside for social distancing if the need to socially distance itself fades. A big problem is confusion. People on both sides of this debate-that-shouldn't-even-be-a-debate are complaining that they simply don't know who's in charge, so they don't know who's accountable. A meeting of the Queens Community Board 3 Traffic and Transportation Committee featured some of the usual irrational fears of the pro-car crowd, but mostly, members of the committee kept asking DOT for its plans. For instance, some residents complained that there is more trash on 34th Avenue as a result of the many residents now using it for recreation, safe interactions with their neighbors or to enjoy the quiet and cleaner air of a rare car-free space. And, yes, there is trash, which tends to happen wherever humans gather. Others asked bizarre questions about families hosting birthday parties on the park-like street. Others complained about vendors, who simply go where the people are and tend to offer what people want. Others asked about the open streets volunteer group that the DOT selected to run the program. Others asked why 34th Avenue was chosen at all. Open-streets skeptics have raised similar questions in North Brooklyn. Of course, the questions themselves are not unreasonable -- but the questions only point to the logical answer: The city needs to take control of this unique, life-changing, much-loved program and use city resources. The buck needs to stop with someone at City Hall. And there are many options that will create great open space -- and clarity. In other words, if 34th Avenue between Junction Boulevard and 69th Street was simply converted into a park, it would be run as a park, with the Parks Department overseeing sanitation, permitting rules, vending rules, and complaints from the public. If 34th Avenue was converted into a DOT plaza, it would be run as a DOT plaza, with existing DOT plaza rules, permitting rules, vending rules. If the future of 34th Avenue calls for a new design or capital expense, it would be redesigned as a Department of Design and Construction project, which would be run as a Department of Design and Construction project, with existing Department of Design and Construction rules, etc. You get the idea. The problem is, the de Blasio administration has chosen confusion, which stems from the emergency creation of the open streets program in the first place. When peppered with questions about the program at the CB3 meeting, DOT official Jason Banrey made it very clear that the de Blasio administration's idea of "permanent" still relies on citizen volunteers. "The city needs the help of volunteers," Banrey said. "They breathe life into the program and make it happen." They're also cannon fodder. On April 8, North Brooklyn volunteer Rick Karr was assaulted by an opponent of the open street program on Driggs Avenue, a roadway often used as a shortcut through the neighborhood for drivers exiting the Kosciuszko Bridge. Karr declined to provide details because it's now a legal matter, but some details could be gleaned from witnesses and the police report. At around 5 p.m. on April 8 Karr noticed that the barricades at Driggs and Morgan avenues had been moved to the sidewalk, so he started to redeploy them to re-establish the open street. A neighbor started screaming at him, "Oh, no you don't! Oh, no you don't! We just took those down, you're not putting them back up." The neighbor approached and grabbed one of the barricades that Karr was re-installing -- and did so in a way that sent the volunteer to the ground, where he received scrapes from the barricade. Karr withdrew to a nearby store to escape the screaming neighbor, while a witness called the 94th Precinct. By the time the squad car arrived, the belligerent neighbor had fled. Cops took a report, but no arrest has been made (police declined to comment for this story). The incident with Karr puts a klieg light on the most glaring problem with de Blasio's approach to the open streets program that he says will continue forever despite failing to remedy the underlying tension that has persisted during his seven-plus-year tenure: the car-owning minority sees every streetscape improvement as a "war on cars," while the vast majority of New Yorkers who don't own a car rightly feel that their neighbors' use of a car endangers them, pollutes the air, congests the roadways and generally makes life intolerable in vast stretches of New York City. "I have lived in Greenpoint for 21 years, but the perpetrator of the assault on me kept saying that I and people like me aren't welcome here and that we're not real Greenpointers," Karr said. "For the most part, we don't own cars. We don't drive to work every day. The old timers tend to drive to and from work every day. That has metastasized into a feeling on their part that their way of life is under attack. And once that happens, it's very difficult to make a case [for open streets] to anyone who feels that." Correct -- but why are volunteers like Rick Karr even in the position of having to "make a case" at all? Why are DOT officials whispering to open streets volunteers to step up their public advocacy to give them cover, we've learned, when it should be the other way around? "How can this city sustain a program like this completely dependent on volunteer labor and flimsy barricades?" asked Noel Hidalgo, who is involved in the North Brooklyn effort and favors street redesigns to do the bulk of the work of keeping thru-traffic at bay. "The open street on Driggs can easily be implemented by flipping the direction of one or two blocks," he said. "That would immediately calm the traffic on a quarter-mile stretch with two elementary schools and the neighborhood's largest park. That type of simple change would save this open street. The DOT toolkit is available: flipping streets, putting down planters, adding jersey barriers. It comes down to how much effort this mayor is willing to make to ensure that this legacy-defining program is implemented." Karr said he favored tight chicanes to slow down traffic, but such a solution, or the ones proposed by Hidalgo are the stuff that DOT tends to present at "visioning" sessions, but never seems to install. (And the agency did not respond to several increasingly urgent requests to comment for this story, even when told of the injuries sustained by an open streets volunteer.) Given Bill de Blasio's seemingly unique ability to be hated simultaneously by progressives and conservatives during his mayoralty, it should surprise no one that the mayor's failure to create a clear program with clear designs and clear accountability frustrates the open streets supporters and also the opponents. One woman, who lives in the McGolrick Park area and started an anti-open streets petition on Change.org, is also upset that a program created by the city isn't run by the city. "This was started as a COVID program and it largely worked, but if this is going to continue, we need to know things like the hours, who's in charge, what will be done about the trash, how will people who do have cars get around," she said. "When I try to voice these concerns to people who have some kind of power, I get accused of attacking or misleading. The so-called 'anti-open streets' people are painted as vicious car-loving eco-terrorists. And that is really not the case." (Well, except in the case of Rick Karr, or the people who vandalized the locks, or the people who run over and destroy barricades or the people who tossed all the new barricades into McGolrick Park the other day, or . . .) The original petition didn't do itself any favors thanks to a glaring inaccuracy -- including an allegation that 1,000 parking spaces would be removed in the neighborhood. (The petition has been updated in the "updates" tab, but few people read through those.) The opponent claims she just wants the questions about the program resolved (she also claims she's been harassed by open-streets supporters). And it's fair to point out that some open streets that were created in the crucible of the pandemic weren't ideal given specific neighborhood logistics (reminder: one of the city's original open streets was Prospect Park West in Park Slope, but that was quickly abandoned when residents of the side streets pointed out how much traffic was being rerouted down their once-quiet roadways). There's no reason that open streets that don't work perfectly can't be switched out for other open streets that would work better -- well, no reason except that the DOT open streets process is simply to field applications from various volunteer groups rather than plan a network of open streets based on the agency's knowledge and experience. This same person was at the meeting when two DOT employees were so verbally abused that they withdrew. It took place in the 94th Precinct station house, and was meant to be a small session featuring two open streets opponents (not this person) who demanded a meeting with DOT so that they, like the open streets volunteers, could have direct communication with city officials. It didn't go well. First, one attendee, a veteran, threatened to remove his pants to show off bullet wounds he sustained in one of America's many wars, apparently an effort to show that DOT isn't even listening to the needs of veterans (who own cars). Then, according to our source, it got even more heated, with two opponents speaking belligerently to DOT officials Kyle Gorman and Ronda Messer, who tried to respond but then left. "I was there just as an observer," she said. "The DOT people were being shouted at and being interrupted. So it was very understandable that they left. I don't know how you can be expected to remain calm as people are screaming at you." It's unclear what happens next. And that is a problem. The irony, of course, is that hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers -- even many who own cars -- are enjoying the de Blasio administration's open streets. Streetfilms visited four of the best ones, and the resulting video makes a strong argument that the city should do something fast. [GN] NEW YORK, NY: Taxi Drivers File Class Suit Over Medallion Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clayton Guse and Noah Goldberg, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a new class action lawsuit says a decade of negligence and corruption by New York City officials destroyed the value of yellow taxi medallions, and demands $2.5 billion in restitution. The suit alleges a years-long scheme in which the city "artificially" inflated yellow cab medallion prices it sold to cabbies at auction by lying about their value. From 2004 to 2014, the medallion sales netted city coffers $855 million, the suit says. But the city then created competition for the yellow cabs by allowing Uber and Lyft to operate tens of thousands of for-hire vehicles in the city. That tanked medallion prices -- and all the while, the city did nothing to help yellow taxi drivers who were put financially underwater, the lawsuit says. "There was a large-scale fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate medallion values and drive up the prices," said lawyer Jon Norinsberg, who represents the cabbies. "It'd be one thing if the medallion prices rose through natural market conditions. But between 2004 and 2014 they skyrocketed as a result of fraudulent manipulation by the TLC and the city of New York." The suit as filed names two medallion owners as plaintiffs -- but the lawyers behind it expect thousands of cabbies will join the case. Neither the city nor the TLC immediately responded to a request for comment on the lawsuit. The city's taxi medallion program launched in 1937 to rein in the growing number of cabs on city streets. The number of medallions -- which gave yellow cabs the exclusive right to respond to street hails -- was fixed for decades at 11,787. That changed in 1996, when then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani began auctioning new medallions. The program continued under Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and the number of medallions on the street grew to 13,500. Cabbies saw the medallions as a good investment, and their selling prices exceeded $1 million by 2013. But their values fell to less than $150,000 in the following years as e-hail companies like Uber and Lyft were permitted to operate for-hire vehicles that do not require medallions in the city. The suit alleges city officials were in 2011 warned the medallion market would collapse by TLC staffer Gary Roth, who wrote a memo made public in 2019 warning that "if the price of medallions dropped significantly, it could force recent medallion buyers underwater." Despite Roth's findings, the TLC continued to auction off new medallions for sky-high prices, the suit says. The suit also alleges that former TLC officials Matt Daus and David Yassky met in Sept. 2012 to hatch a plan to allow Uber and Lyft to put an unlimited number of cars on city streets in what "would prove to be the coup de grace for the New York yellow taxi industry." A lawyer for Daus strongly denied the allegations and noted that Daus left the TLC in 2010. According to the lawyer, Daus "was out of town on Sept. 25, 2012, and did NOT have a meeting with Mr. Yassky on that date, or any other date, about medallions -- or assisting Uber or Lyft with launching in New York City or elsewhere. In fact, Uber had already launched in New York City in May 2011, which is 16 months prior to this alleged meeting." It also claims that city officials deliberately lied when they advertised medallions as airtight investments, and did nothing to stop bid-rigging by taxi medallion owner Evgeny Friedman. Norinsberg said federal racketeering law means the medallion owners are owed three times the $855 million in revenue the city earned through medallion sales from 2004 to 2014. Bloomberg, the TLC, the city, Friedman and several other city officials are listed as defendants. The suit follows Attorney General Letitia James' decision in February to back off from plans to file a $810 million lawsuit that would have accused the city of fraudulently inflating medallion values. Norinsberg said his team plans to "finish the job" James started. Mayor de Blasio in recent years has taken some steps to crack down on Uber and Lyft by limiting the number of cars the companies can operate on city streets, a move many yellow taxi drivers believe came too late. De Blasio last month also announced a program to give struggling cabbies $20,000 no-interest loans to help them refinance their bloated debts. [GN] NOKIA CORP: Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on March 29, 2021, Judge Andrew L. Carter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class action against a Finnish telecommunications company (the "Company") and its former CEO for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In re Nokia Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 19-cv-3982 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021). Plaintiff alleged the Company made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding (i) the success of its post-merger integration with another telecommunications company (the "Acquired Company"); and (ii) the Company's readiness to transition to 5G wireless cellular network technology ("5G"). The Court dismissed the claims for failure to plead an actionable misstatement or omission. In November 2016, the Company announced that it had completed the merger. In February 2017, the Company announced completion of all post-merger integration projects "with the exception of a small handful of long-tail efforts." However, in March 2019, the Company announced compliance issues at the Acquired Company that could result in significant civil and criminal penalties. In October 2019, the Company also disclosed that it had encountered a variety of difficulties transitioning to 5G, including uncertainty associated with the merger. Against this backdrop, plaintiff alleged that the statements from March 2017 through early 2019 touting the Company's integration progress and 5G preparedness, such as "we are effectively moving beyond the integration effort," "the heavy lifting is over," and "we are in a very strong position for 5G," were misleading because the Company did not disclose ongoing risks associated with the integration that also jeopardized the Company's 5G preparedness. The Court rejected plaintiff's claim that the Company's statements regarding integration with the Acquired Company were false. The Court explained that plaintiff did not identify any integration milestones that the Company falsely claimed to have achieved, and that the complaint's "vague references" to "significant problems" with integration were insufficient to plead an omission related to the Acquired Company's compliance issues. The Court also held that the Company's repeated risk disclosures about the uncertainties of integration -- including the risk that the Company may be subject to penalties for the Acquired Company's past compliance violations -- further supported the conclusion that the Company did not mislead investors regarding the status of the integration. The Court added that, even if plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to show the statements were false, the statements "touting the progress of the integration" would nonetheless constitute non-actionable puffery. Next, the Court rejected plaintiff's claim that the Company's statements regarding its readiness to transition to 5G were false because the Court could not "reasonably infer" that the Company's integration challenges were so significant that they rendered its statements about its 5G readiness false. The Court emphasized that research analysts at the time attributed the Company's 5G transition difficulties to a "confluence of factors," many of which were unrelated to integration with the Acquired Company. The Court also noted that the Company publicly disclosed the difficulties it experienced in transitioning to 5G, including difficulties related to integration with the Acquired Company. The Court added that, even if plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts to show the statements were false, the vast majority of them were forward-looking statements protected by the PSLRA's safe harbor. Finally, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because doing so would be futile given the Company's "numerous and continuous disclosures" regarding post-merger integration and the 5G transition. [GN] NYU HOSPITALS: Appeals Denial of Summary Judgment Bid ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned Colette Valentine, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. NYU Hospitals Center, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 154138/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., April 12, 2021), Defendant NYU Langone Hospitals (f/k/a NYU Hospitals Center) appeals to the Appellate Division from the Decision and Order issued by the Honorable Justice Paul A. Goetz, J.S.C. of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, and entered on February 23, 2021, which denied NYU's Motion for leave to Renew its Motion for Summary Judgment, following the Court's denial of NYU's Motion for Summary Judgment by Order entered on February 20, 2020.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Phone: (516) 625-0105 Email: lg@louisginsberglawoffices.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert S. Whitman, Esq. Lisa L. Savadjian, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 218-5500 Email: rwhitman@seyfarth.com lsavadjian@seyfarth.com ONTRAK INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 3 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, on April 8 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Ontrak, Inc. ("Ontrak" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:OTRK) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 5, 2020 and February 26, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 3, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Ontrak's largest customer gauged the Company's performance on the basis of reaching the lowest cost per medical visit possible rather than patient outcomes or medical cost savings. This customer found the Company's program to be ineffective and was likely to terminate its contract. Because this customer represented a significant portion of the Company's revenue, the loss of this contract would have a significant impact on its financial results. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Ontrak, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] OUTBACK CARE: Faces Wrenn Wage-and-Hour Class Suit in M.D. Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS WRENN and SHARAH TOLBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OUTBACK CARE GROUP LLC and KEN BLACKMON, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00061-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated employees appropriate minimum wage and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff Wrenn worked for the Defendants from approximately November 2019 to April 2020. His last position was a house manager. Plaintiff Tolbert worked for the Defendants from approximately February 2018 to July 2019. Her last position was a live-in care provider. Outback Care Group LLC is an assisted living facility operator, with its principal place of business located at 6930 Buena Vista Road, Columbus, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin M. Scott, Esq. Michael David Forrest, Esq. SCOTT EMPLOYMENT LAW, P.C. 160 Clairemont Avenue, Suite 610 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (678) 780-4880 Facsimile: (478) 575-2590 E-mail: jscott@scottemploymentlaw.com mforrest@scottemploymentlaw.com OZARK MOUNTAIN: Fails to Properly Pay Poultry Workers, Johnson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OZARK MOUNTAIN POULTRY, INC. and GEORGE'S, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-05075-PKH (W.D. Ark., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a pallet jack operator from June 2020 to March 2021. Ozark Mountain Poultry, Inc. is a manufacturer of poultry products based in Rogers, Arkansas. George's, Inc. is a poultry company headquartered in Springdale, Arkansas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy., Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com PHILIP MORRIS: Craig Sues Over Harmful Effects of Cigarettes ------------------------------------------------------------ JENNIFER CRAIG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of CURTIS J. CRAIG, Plaintiff v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.; R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY; LIGGETT GROUP LLC; and PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS, INC., Defendants, Case No. CACE-21-008337 (Fla. 17th Jud. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation, and wrongful death pursuant to the Florida's Wrongful Death Act. According to the complaint, the Decedent smoked and inhaled the Defendants' cigarette products which caused and/or substantially contributed to the development of his lung cancer, in addition to other related physical conditions, which resulted in and directly caused him to suffer severe bodily injuries, and his untimely death. The Defendants allegedly designed their cigarettes to be highly addictive, which made it difficult for users, such as the Decedent, to terminate or restrict their chronic use. Moreover, the Defendants omitted and failed to disclose material information about the harms of smoking, the suit added. Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a cigarette manufacturer headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is a manufacturer of tobacco products based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Liggett Group LLC is a tobacco company headquartered in Durham, North Carolina. Publix Super Markets, Inc. is an operator of a chain of supermarkets based in Lakeland, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Alvarez, Esq. THE ALY AREZ LAW FIRM 3251 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-7675 Facsimile: (305) 444-0075 E-mail: alex@TALF.Law phillip@TALF.Law michael@TALF.Law nick@TALF.Law PLUG POWER: Vincent Wong Reminds Investors of May 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on April 7 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) ("Plug Power") between November 9, 2020 and March 1, 2021. If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/plug-power-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=14446&wire=5 Allegations against PLUG include that the Company made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company would be unable to timely file its 2020 annual report due to delays related to the review of classification of certain costs and the recoverability of the right to use assets with certain leases; (2) the Company was reasonably likely to report material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you suffered a loss in Plug Power you have until May 7, 2021 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Silberman Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The case is styled as Joseph Silberman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 7:21-cv-03592 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. MARCUS & ZELMAN LLC 701 Cookman Avenue, Suite 300 Asbury Park, NJ 07712 Phone: (845) 367-7146 Fax: (732) 298-6256 Email: yzelman@marcuszelman.com PRAIRIE FARMS: Wach Sues Over Ice Cream's Deceptive Labels ---------------------------------------------------------- KELLY WACH, BRYAN BOR, and LEROY JACOBS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PRAIRIE FARMS DAIRY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-02191 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breaches of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, Negligent Misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and consumer protection statutes of other states. The case arises from the Defendant's false and deceptive advertising, labeling, and marketing of Premium Vanilla ice cream. The Defendant advertises, labels, and sells the product to contain a non-negligible amount of extracts from vanilla beans and only natural flavoring ingredients. In reality, the vanilla taste in the product is from synthetic, non-natural flavorings. The Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed by the misrepresentations. Had they known the truth, they would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it, the suit alleges. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. is a manufacturer of organic dairy products, with a principal place of business in Edwardsville, Illinois, Madison County. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409 Great Neck, NY 11021-3104 Telephone: (516) 268-7080 Facsimile: (516) 234-7800 E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com PRETIUM RESOURCES: Court Weighs Secondary Market Liability Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernise Carolino, writing for Canadian, reports that a recent securities case offers insight to litigants in class proceedings alleging secondary market misrepresentations who are deciding whether to pursue settlement after leave was granted or keep defending the claim on the merits, a law firm blog has said. "The decision in Pretium highlights the interplay and delta between the 'reasonable possibility' standard applicable on the test for leave under section 138.8 of the OSA, and the more stringent 'balance of probabilities' standard applicable to the ultimate adjudication of an action on the merits," said the post written by Lara Jackson, Christopher Horkins and Joseph Hamaliuk of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. In Wong v. Pretium Resources, 2021 ONSC 54, the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario was dealing with cross-motions for summary judgment on certified common issues. Back in 2017, Justice Edward Belobaba gave the plaintiff leave to begin an action for secondary market misrepresentation under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S.5, then certified the action on consent as a class proceeding. The Superior Court determined on the basis of the reasonable possibility test that the plaintiff may succeed at trial, noting that the defendants could still prevail in the full litigation if they presented sufficient evidence to meet the balance of probabilities standard. In the 2021 case, the Superior Court said that summary judgment was appropriate under Rule 20.04(2)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because nearly all the evidence was documentary in nature, including affidavits and cross-examination transcripts, and because there were no credibility issues or other genuine issues needing a trial. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that there were no misrepresentations or omissions of any material fact on the part of the defendants. The main issue before the court was whether the defendant gold mining company's failure to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants was an omission of a material fact and an actionable misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. The court found on a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants did not have the obligation to disclose information that they reasonably and objectively believed was misleading and bad. The mining consultant's opinions were not material facts, given that they were unsolicited, unreliable, inexpert and premature, said the court. The court found, upon considering the additional evidence the defendants adduced, that the documents that the defendants released in July and October 2013 did not contain misrepresentations and that the defendants acted properly throughout and were relieved of liability under the reasonable investigation defence. The court noted that the defendants also presented compelling submissions for two other statutory defences under s. 138.4(9) and s. 138.4(11) of the Securities Act. The blog post by Cassels said that this case also showed how being granted leave to proceed would not ensure that the plaintiff would fulfill the stricter evidentiary standard for a hearing on the merits and confirmed that reliability of information was a required precondition to materiality. "Given the Court's decision in Pretium, plaintiffs may now be hesitant to take their claims to the merits stage for fear of having them dismissed at trial or summary judgment," the blog said. [GN] QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Drips' Bid to Quash Moved to D. Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, DRIPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Petitioner v. QUOTEWIZARD.COM, LLC, Respondent, Case No. 1:21-MC-00017-PAB (N.D. Ohio), Judge Pamela A. Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio entered Memorandum Opinion & Order: (i) transferring Drips' Motion to Quash to the U.S. District Court of the District of Massachusetts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f); and (ii) denying as moot (a) Drips' Motion to Quash Subpoena to Produce Documents and (b) proposed intervenor Joseph Mantha's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer, which Drips opposed. The instant subpoena dispute stems from a series of ongoing and highly contentious discovery disputes that arose in the underlying action, Mantha v. QuoteWizard.com, LLC, a putative class action before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In the underlying action, Plaintiff Mantha "seeks to represent two nationwide classes, claiming that QuoteWizard violated the do-not-call ("DNC") and automatic telephone dialing system restrictions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq." QuoteWizard contends that it had consumers' consent to send them the messages at issue. Drips, an Akron, Ohio-based technology company, is not a party to the underlying action. It operates what it calls an "outreach platform." This means that other companies pay to use Drips's platform to contact their own customers. One of Drips' clients was QuoteWizard. QuoteWizard utilized Drips' platform to send messages to QuoteWizard customers. In mid-2020, approximately one year into the underlying action, Plaintiff Mantha requested that QuoteWizard produce "all documents evidencing any complaints received by you from anyone, including any government agency, in regards to text messages sent by You or some entity on Your behalf utilizing Drips technology." QuoteWizard objected on relevance and burden grounds. Mantha also requested that QuoteWizard produce "all consumer requests that future telemarketing calls cease ("Do Not Call") provided to you by anyone in any way relating to text telemarketing conducted on your behalf by Drips." It also refused this request. On Sept. 30, 2020, Mantha moved to compel production of these documents by QuoteWizard. On Oct. 19, 2020, Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley ordered production of "all documents evidencing any complaints" and of "all Do Not Call requests" in QuoteWizard's custody, control, or possession. Neither party objected to Magistrate Judge Kelley's ruling or sought clarification. QuoteWizard supplemented its responses to Mantha's RFP by representing that QuoteWizard had no documents that evidenced any complaints QuoteWizard received from anyone. Once again, Mantha moved to compel production of the Do Not Call requests. QuoteWizard objected, arguing that such a production exceeded the scope of Phase 1 discovery, would be unduly burdensome, and concerned documents not within QuoteWizard's possession under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On Jan. 11, 2021, Magistrate Judge Kelley ruled again that QuoteWizard must produce "all comments by consumers related to the 46,000 Do Not Call requests, whether pertaining to 'complaints' about the texts received or simply 'opt-outs'." On Jan. 25, 2021, QuoteWizard objected to Magistrate Judge Kelley's order requiring production of the Do Not Call requests, arguing that the requests were not within its possession, custody, or control. On Feb. 24, 2021, District Judge Leo Sorokin overruled QuoteWizard's objections and concluded that the documents were indeed within QuoteWizard's custody or control. Having been thrice ordered to produce the Do Not Call requests and related consumer comments, on March 1, 2021, QuoteWizard propounded a subpoena on Drips to produce the records so that QuoteWizard could produce them to Mantha. QuoteWizard demanded that Drips produce all comments made by consumers to Drips related to all Do Not Call Requests (as classified by Drips) made by consumers who received telemarking texts from Drips on behalf of QuoteWizard. On March 15, 2021, Drips filed the instant Motion to Quash, arguing that the subpoena is unduly burdensome. Because Drips is headquartered in Akron, Ohio, Drips seeks relief from the Court, as the Northern District of Ohio is "the district where compliance with the subpoena is required." However, discovery disputes in the underlying action continued to arise. On March 18, 2021, three days after Drips filed its Motion to Quash, Respondent QuoteWizard appeared in the Court and filed a "Notice of Relevant Order Issued in Underlying Case." According to QuoteWizard, Judge Sorokin had ordered QuoteWizard to file a copy of a March 16, 2021 Order issued in the underlying action with the Court. Judge Sorokin, in his March 16, 2021 Order, denied QuoteWizard's motion for reconsideration of his previous Feb. 24, 2021 ruling in which he ordered QuoteWizard to produce the 46,000 records. Thus, for a fourth time, the District of Massachusetts ordered QuoteWizard to produce these records. However, Judge Sorokin also noted that, on March 15, 2021, QuoteWizard alerted the District of Massachusetts that QuoteWizard subpoenaed the records from Drips but that Drips had filed the instant Motion to Quash with the Court. This kicked off another round of briefing between Mantha and QuoteWizard in the District of Massachusetts, this time focused squarely on whether compelling production of these 46,000 records would impose an undue burden on Drips. On March 23, 2021, Mantha filed his brief, urging the District of Massachusetts to reject QuoteWizard's "convenient and late claims of burden." On March 25, 2021, QuoteWizard filed a supplemental brief, urging the District of Massachusetts not to compel production of the records because of the undue burden on Drips. On March 26, 2021, Mantha obtained leave to file, and subsequently filed, a surreply. Meanwhile in the Court, on March 23, 2021, proposed intervenor Mantha filed a Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer Drips's Motion to Quash to the District of Massachusetts. According to Mantha, "exceptional circumstances" exist in the matter to merit transferring Drips' Motion to Quash out of its own home district and over to the District of Massachusetts, where the underlying action continues. On March 29, 2021, Respondent QuoteWizard filed a Motion to Stay Its Response Deadline to Petitioner's Motion to Quash Pending Forthcoming Rulings that will Affect or Govern This Dispute. In its Motion to Stay, QuoteWizard requested that the Court stay QuoteWizard's deadline to respond to Drips' Motion to Quash because QuoteWizard anticipated that Judge Sorokin would soon rule on the exact issue of Drips's alleged undue burden in the underlying action and QuoteWizard wished to avoid inconsistent rulings between the District of Massachusetts and the Court. In the alternative, QuoteWizard requested a 10-day extension of its deadline to respond. The Court granted QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay in part to the extent that QuoteWizard sought a 10-day extension but indicated that the Court would await a response from Drips with respect to QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay. On April 6, 2021, Drips filed its Brief in Opposition to Mantha's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer. On April 7, 2021, Drips requested, and the Court granted it, leave to file by April 14, 2021, a response to QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay. On April 8, 2021, QuoteWizard filed its Brief in Opposition to Drips's Motion to Quash. It offered no substantive opposition to Drips' Motion to Quash, despite having been ordered four times by the District of Massachusetts to produce the records at issue. However, according to QuoteWizard's Opposition, briefing regarding Drips' burden continued in the underlying action past Mantha's March 26, 2021 sur-reply. In an order dated March 31, 2021, the District of Massachusetts "noted from Mantha's filings that it appeared that Drips had been able to produce similar do not call records, and indeed approximately 226,000 of them, in a putative class action case in the Northern District of California." Judge Sorokin observed that Drips's production in the Northern District of California matter appeared to be inconsistent with Drips's current assertion that 46,000 records would be unduly burdensome in the underlying action. Accordingly, Judge Sorokin gave QuoteWizard and/or Drips seven days, or until April 7, 2021, to file a supplemental brief explaining "why Drips was able to produce the records in that other case but was arguing that producing similar records herein would be unduly burdensome." According to QuoteWizard, Drips declined Judge Sorokin's "invitation" to brief the issue of undue burden in the District of Massachusetts, but QuoteWizard filed a supplemental brief in the District of Massachusetts on April 7, 2021. Five days later, on April 13, 2021, QuoteWizard withdrew its April 6, 2021 response to proposed intervenor Mantha's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer. According to QuoteWizard, although it initially consented to Mantha's Motion to Transfer on April 6, 2017, it now withdrew that consent. QuoteWizard represented to this Court that it was "appealing all aspects of the ongoing discovery dispute in the underlying case" and, as a result, took "no position on the subject motion to intervene and transfer." Indeed, QuoteWizard.com, LLC v. Joseph Mantha was docketed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on March 30, 2021. Despite having been granted leave to file a response to QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay by April 14, 2021, Drips failed to do so. Further, while Drips's Reply in Support of its Motion to Quash was due on April 15, 2021, Drips filed no such Reply by April 15, 2021. Instead, due to a filing error, Drips inadvertently refiled its April 7, 2021 Motion for Leave on April 15, 2021. Drips did not correct the error and file its Reply until April 16, 2021, a day late. In its Reply, Drips included its response to QuoteWizard's Motion to Stay. However, despite the Reply and response being untimely, Judge Barker considers both. Upon review, the Judge concludes that, in light of the instant exceptional circumstances, transfer of the matter to the District of Massachusetts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(f) is appropriate. First, the underlying action has been pending in the District of Massachusetts for approximately 18 months. Second, the District of Massachusetts is currently considering the identical issue regarding undue burden on Drips. Further, if the Court evaluated Drips' Motion Quash, it would necessarily have to weigh the need for the discovery of these 46,000 records against Drips' alleged undue burden. While she does not take lightly the transfer of a local nonparty's Motion to an out-of-district court, the Judge opines that the exceptional circumstances outweigh Drips' burden. The dispute is considerably more complex and, in balancing the need for discovery of the 46,000 records against Drips' interest in nondisclosure, implicates substantive issues at the heart of the underlying action, not a straightforward disagreement over the scope of electronic discovery. For the foregoing reasons, Judge Barker concludes that the exceptional circumstances outweigh any burden transfer may impose on Drips. Under Rule 45(f), she transfers the Motion to Quash to the District of Massachusetts. Because she transfers the instant Motion, she denied as moot proposed intervenor Mantha's Motion to Intervene and Motion to Transfer and Respondent QuoteWizard's Motion for Stay. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3p47xfst from Leagle.com. R&D TECHNICAL: Galvan Seeks OT, Minimum Wages Under Labor Code -------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR RUIZ GALVAN, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, v. R&D TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., a California Corporation; L3 HARRIES TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 21CV378924 (Calif. Super., Santa Clara Cty., March 30, 2021) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay all wages including overtime wages and minimum wages under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and Plaintiff Class were required 8 hours a day and/or 40 hours per week without lawful compensation. They were also subject to an unlawful rounding policy for their compensable work time. This is a class action brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and the class of similarly and current employees. The class members consist of non-exempt, hourly-paid employees currently and formerly employed by the Defendant. R&D Technical Services is a staffing agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Lo, Esq. Edward Kim, Esq. 22939 Hawthorne Blvd, Suite 202 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (866) 496-7552 Facsimile: (424) 355-8535 E-mail: Justin@caworklawyer.com Ed@lfiworklawggr.com REPRO MED: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 25 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Repro Med Systems, Inc. d/b/a KORU Medical Systems ("KORU" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: KRMD) for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between August 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 25, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. KORU increased the usage of allowances such as growth rebates to key customers to retain their business and improve growth starting in January 2020. As these rebates built up, the Company's net sales were likely to decline. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about KORU, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] ROGERS WIRELESS: Customers to Get Early Termination Fee Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- Helena Hanson, writing for Narcity, reports that right now, there are multiple class-action lawsuits across Canada that could directly impact you. If you have shopped at Sears Canada, bought a prepaid credit card or purchased an iPhone, you could be eligible for some financial compensation. "A class action is a procedural device that permits one or more plaintiffs to file and prosecute a lawsuit on behalf of a larger group, or 'class,'" according to the Wex Legal Dictionary. They are often filed against government entities, financial institutions, manufacturers, retailers or employers, for example. Although many people can be impacted by a single class-action suit, you won't always be contacted directly about your involvement. With that in mind, here are some of the biggest class-action suits happening in Canada right now that could put money straight back into your pocket: Who Can Apply: Per this lawsuit, Rogers Wireless Communications was ordered to reimburse former customers for the Early Termination Fee of phone contracts paid between February 2008 and June 2013. To be eligible for money back, you'll need to be a resident of Quebec and have entered into a contract between January 1, 2007, and June 30, 2010. You'll also need to have ended the contract before the end of its term and paid the ETF between February 21, 2008, and June 30, 2013. [GN] ROOT INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Root Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, and docketed under 21-cv-01197, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired: (a) Root securities between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (b) Root Class A common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about October 28, 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Root securities during the Class Period and/or pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you have until May 18, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Root provides insurance products and services in the U.S. The Company has historically focused on auto insurance and operates a direct-to-consumer model that serves customers primarily through mobile applications, as well as through the Company's website. Leading up to and following the IPO, Root described itself as an innovator in the personal insurance space with a new data- and technology-driven business model that was ready to disrupt traditional insurance markets and capture disproportionate market share, in part because of the Company's telematics-driven approach to insurance -- i.e., the collection and transmission of vehicle-use data through devices. On October 5, 2020, Root filed a registration statement on Form S-1 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was declared effective on October 27, 2020 (the "Registration Statement"). On October 28, 2020, Root conducted the IPO, selling 26.8 million shares of the Company's Class A common stock to the public at $27.00 per share for total approximate proceeds of $724.43 million. On October 29, 2020, Root filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and, together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering Documents"). The Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Additionally, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Root would foreseeably fail to generate positive cash flow for at least several years following the IPO; (ii) accordingly, the Company would foreseeably require significant cash infusions to meet its cash flow needs; (iii) notwithstanding the Defendants' touting of Root's purportedly unique, data-driven advantages, several of the Company's established industry peers in fact possessed significant competitive advantages over Root with respect to, inter alia, telematics data and data engagement; and (iv) as a result, the Offering Documents and Defendants' public statements throughout the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On March 9, 2021, Bank of America ("BofA") Securities analyst Joshua Shanker ("Shanker") initiated coverage of Root with an "Underperform" rating on the premise that the Company is unlikely to be cash flow positive until 2027, finding that Root "will require not insignificant cash infusions from the capital markets to bridge its cash flow needs." Shanker also noted that insurers Progressive, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway's Geico would continue to impede the Company's profitability, with Progressive and Allstate having a "sizable advantage over Root in terms of amount of [telematics] data as well as engagement with the data" used to price their auto insurance. On this news, Root's stock price fell $0.18 per share, or 1.46%, to close at $12.17 per share on March 9, 2021, representing a total decline of 54.93% from the Offering price. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN] ROOT INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Root, Inc. ("Root" or "the Company") (NASDAQ:ROOT) for violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's October 28, 2020 initial public offering (the "IPO"), or between October 28, 2020 and March 8, 2021 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 18, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Root was likely to fail to generate positive cash flow for years following its IPO. As a result, the Company was likely to require injections of cash to fund its operations. The Company touted its data-driven advantages in the marketplace, but its established industry competitors had already developed superior technology that resulted in a competitive advantage over the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's Offering documents and public statements during the IPO and class period were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the truth about Root, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] ROPER ST. FRANCIS: Jane Doe Sues Over Breach of Patient Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe #2, individually, an on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ROPER ST. FRANCIS HEALTHCARE, and TORTFEASORS 1-10, Case No. 2021CP1001668 (S.C. Ct. of Common Please, 9th Judicial Ct., Charleston Cty., April 12, 2021), is brought arising from the breach of private patient data, personal, financial, medical, and otherwise that was compromised by the negligent acts and omissions of Roper St. Francis, their agents, servants, employees and assigns. According to the complaint, Roper St. Francis has had a history of data breaches since 2019. Roper knew the data it stored was vulnerable to cyberattack based upon these repeated and ongoing data breaches. Specifically, Roper St. Francis had three previous hacking incidents before the one complained of herein: (a) The first reported on January 29, 2019 that effected 35,253 people; (b) The second reported on September 3, 2020 that affected 6,000 people; and (c) The third reported on September 8, 2020 that effected 92,963 people. In January of 2021, the Defendant sent out notice letters informing former and current patients of a data breach involving their private medical, personal and financial information stating that, "On November 11, 2020 we learned that an unauthorized individual gained access to three workforce members' email accounts between October 14, 2020 and October 29, 2020." The notice letter confirmed that her confidential private medical and financial information which she had entrusted to the Defendant had been released without her authorization or consent. This information had been provided to- and entrusted to Defendant- as part and parcel of Plaintiff's decision to undergo medical services with the Defendant. The Defendants maintained the Plaintiff and Class Members' private information on a shared network, server, and/or software. Despite its own awareness of past data breaches on its own systems, the Defendants did not maintain adequate security of the Plaintiff and Class Members' data, to protect against hackers and cyberattacks. This is an action on behalf of the the Plaintiff and all members of the Class to recover from the Defendants' ongoing continued and unmitigated negligence in allowing the latest Data Breach, and recovery of damages to make the Plaintiff and Class members whole, or as nearly as whole as possible, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Jane Doe is a resident of the state of South Carolina, County of Charleston. The Defendant is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence E. Richter, Jr., Esq. Anna E. Richter, Esq. THE RICHTER FIRM, LLC 622 Johnnie Dodds Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Phone: 843-849-6000 Email: LRichter@RichterFirm.com Anna@RichterFirm.com - and - Daniel Scott Slotchiver, Esq. SLOTCHIVER & SLOTCHIVER LLP 751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 100 Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 Phone: 843-577-6531 Email: dan@slotchiverlaw.com - and - Carl L. Solomon, Esq. SOLOMON LAW GROUP, LLC P.O. Box 1866 Columbia, SC 29202 Phone: (803) 391-3120 Email: carl@solomonlawsc.com - and - Brent S. Halversen, Esq. BRENT SOUTHER HALVERSEN, LLC 751 Johnnie Dodds Blvd, Suite 200 Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 Phone: 843-284-5790 Email: brent@halversenlaw.com RUSHMORE LOAN: Faces Pueschel FCPA Suit in Massachusetts State Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Pueschel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 21-0739 (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., March 30, 2021) alleges that Rushmore placed more than two debt collection calls to the Plaintiff's cellular telephone within a seven-day period in an attempt to collect an alleged debt from her, violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Defendant is a California-based residential mortgage servicer and originator that regularly places more than two debt collection calls in a seven-day period to Massachusetts consumers as part of its residential mortgage servicing business. Allegedly, Rushmore's debt collection calling practices are illegal in Massachusetts. Indeed, the Massachusetts Attorney General has regulated it an "unfair or deceptive act or practice for a creditor" to "initiate a communication with any debtor via telephone, either in person or via text messaging or recorded audio message, in excess of two such communications in each seven-day period to either the debtor's residence, cellular telephone, or other telephone number provided bythe debtor as his or her personal telephone number, for each debt, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks to represent all consumers similarly situated. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to end Rushmore's illegal practice, declaratory relief to make Rushmore's violations known to the class, actual and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG LAW LLC 43 Danbury Road Wilton, CT 06897 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com SCHOLAR ROCK: Pomerantz Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of Scholar Rock Holding Corporation ("Scholar Rock" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SRRK). Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980. The investigation concerns whether Scholar Rock and certain of its officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawful business practices. On April 6, 2021, Scholar Rock issued a press release announcing what the Company described as "Positive 12-Month Top-Line Results From the TOPAZ Phase 2 Clinical Trial Evaluating Apitegromab in Patients With Type 2 and Type 3 Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA)". While the press release claimed that the "[d]ata further demonstrate proof-of-concept for the therapeutic potential of apitegromab in patients with Type 2 and Type 3 SMA," it also disclosed that "[f]ive patients experienced a serious treatment-emergent adverse event". On this news, Scholar Rock's stock price fell sharply during intraday trading on April 6, 2021. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com. CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com 888-476-6529 ext. 7980 www.pomerantzlaw.com [GN] SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Sequential Brands Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQBG) between November 3, 2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important May 17, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Sequential securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Sequential class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 17, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020 founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in late 2016, Sequential knew or should have known that its goodwill was likely impaired; (2) Sequential avoided and delayed the material write down to goodwill in late 2016 through 2017; (3) Sequential understated its operating expenses and net loss and also materially overstated its income from operations, goodwill, and assets from late 2016 through 2017; (4) Sequential's internal controls were deficient; (5) Sequential has failed to restate, correct, or disclose relevant improprieties, deceptive conduct, misstatements, omissions, and control violations; (6) as a result of the foregoing, Sequential was at greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (7) as a result, defendants' statements about Sequential's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Sequential class action, go to https://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2006.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contact Information: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Schall Law Firm Reminds of May 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Sequential Brands Group, Inc. ("Sequential Brands" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: SQBG) for violations of Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between November 3, 2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 17, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Sequential Brands knew or should have known in late 2016 that its goodwill was impaired. The Company used every tactic possible to delay the material write down in goodwill starting in late 2016 and into 2017. The Company materially understated its operating expenses and net loss while simultaneously overstating its income from operations, goodwill, and assets during this period. The Company failed to maintain internal controls. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Sequential Brands, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] SIMPLY WHOLESOME: Lyons Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMPLY WHOLESOME and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV15437 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime, failure to pay earned wages upon discharge, and failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements. Mr. Lyons was employed by Simply Wholesome as a sandwich maker from 2017 until February of 2021. Simply Wholesome is a restaurant owner and operator located in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Narak Mirzaie, Esq. M LAW ATTORNEYS, APC 680 East Colorado Blvd. Suite 180 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 626-4422 Facsimile: (626) 626-4420 SIX CONTINENTS: Harris Suit Removed to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Tanya Harris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-001043 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00439-MMH-PDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Constitutional - State Statute. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. operates hotels and motels. The Company offers accommodation, spa, and catering services for weddings, events, and corporate meetings, as well as provides leisure activities such as skiing, tennis, fishing, cooking schools, fitness facilities, dining, and water sports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave Ste 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Brandon T. White, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 374-8500 Fax: (305) 789-7799 Email: brandon.white@hklaw.com - and - Jessica Sarah Kramer, Esq. Jason H. Baruch, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP – Tampa 100 N Tampa St., Suite 4100 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 227-6578 Fax: (813) 229-0134 Email: jessica.kramer@hklaw.com jason.baruch@hklaw.com SLOAN VALVE: Popplewell's FLSA Suit Seeks Proper Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- BRICE POPPLEWELL, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SLOAN VALVE COMPANY, Case No. 4:21-cv-00325-BRW (E.D. Ark., April 21, 2021) is a class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other hourly-paid employees lawful overtime compensation. The complaint alleges that despite the entitlement of Plaintiff to minimum wage and overtime payments under the FLSA, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in each one-week period. Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime wages to Plaintiff stems from Defendant's acts of illegally rounding hours worked by Plaintiff in Defendant's favor and not paying Plaintiff for all hours worked at a lawful rate, asserts the complaint. Plaintiff Brice Popplewell was employed by Defendant as an hourly-paid employee within the three years relevant to this lawsuit. Sloan Valve Company is a foreign for-profit corporation, registered and licensed to do business in the State of Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris Burks, Esq. Greg Ivester, Esq. WHLaw I We Help 1 Riverfront Pl. - Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone:(501)891-6000 E-mail: chris@wh.law greg@wh.law SOS LIMITED: Bragar Eagel Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) and Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. SOS Limited (NYSE: SOS) Class Period: July 22, 2020 to February 25, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021 When the Company went public in April 2017, it was known as "China Rapid Finance Limited" and claimed to focus on a peer-to-peer, micro-lending business. The Company later changed its name to "SOS Limited" in July 2020 and sold its peer-to-peer, micro-lending business in August 2020, rebranding itself into an emergency services business. In January 2021, the Company again shifted its business focus, this time to cryptocurrency mining. Critical to SOS's purportedly successful transition into a cryptocurrency mining business were the Company's claims to have entered into an agreement with HY International Group New York Inc. ("HY"), which calls itself the "world's largest mining machine matchmaker," to acquire 15,645 mining rigs -- i.e., personal computing machines built specifically for cryptocurrency mining -- for $20 million, and the Company's plans to purchase FXK Technology Corporation ("FXK"), a purported Canadian cryptocurrency technology firm. On February 26, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake addresses and doctored photos of crypto mining rigs to create an illusion of success. The analysts noted, for example, that SOS's SEC filings listed a hotel room as the Company's headquarters. The analysts also questioned whether SOS had actually purchased mining rigs that it claimed to own, as the entity from which SOS purportedly bought the mining rigs appeared to be a fake shell company. The analysts further alleged that the photos SOS had published of their purported "mining rigs" were phony. Culper noted that photographs of SOS's "miners" did not depict the A10 Pro machines that the Company claimed to own and instead appeared to show different devices altogether. Hindenburg, for its part, found that the original images from SOS's website actually belonged to another company. On this news, SOS's American depositary share price fell $1.27 per share, or 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADS on February 26, 2021. The complaint, filed on March 30, 2021, alleges that, throughout the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; (ii) HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by the Company; (iii) the Company had misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the SOS class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SOS Canoo, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOEV) Class Period: August 18, 2020 to March 29, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 1, 2021 Canoo was formed by a business combination between Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV (a special purpose acquisition (SPAC) company) and Canoo Holdings Limited in December 2020. The Company is a mobile technology company that develops electric vehicles. The complaint, filed on April 2, 2021, alleges that prior to and after the combination, the Company promoted a business model based on a three-phased approach to generating revenue and growth: (i) an engineering services segment, (ii) the sales of subscriptions to vehicles to consumers, and (iii) the sale of vehicles to other businesses. On March 29, 2021, the Company revealed that it was radically changing its business model by deemphasizing its engineering services business and by no longer focusing on its subscription-based business. In response to this news, shares of Canoo fell $2.50 (or $21.2%) from a March 29, 2021 close of $11.80 per share to close at $9.30 per share on March 30, 2021. The complaint further alleges that defendants misled investors by misrepresenting and/or failing to disclose that: (i) the Company's engineering services segment was not a viable business, would not provide meaningful revenue in 2021, and would not reduce operational risk; (ii) that the Company would no longer be focused on its subscription-based business model; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Canoo class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/GOEV About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] SOS LIMITED: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds Investors of June 1 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on June 1 disclosed that a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of those who acquired SOS Limited ("SOS" or the "Company") (NYSE: SOS) American Depositary Receipts ("ADR's) during the period from July 22, 2020, through February 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All investors who purchased the ADR's of SOS Limited and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action or join the case on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have incurred losses in the ADR's of SOS Limited., you may, no later than June 1, 2021, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the ADR's of SOS Limited. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO JOIN CASE The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors: -- SOS had misrepresented the true nature, location, and/or existence of at least one of the principal executive offices listed in its SEC filings; -- HY and FXK were either undisclosed related parties and/or entities fabricated by the Company; -- the Company had misrepresented the type and/or existence of the mining rigs that it claimed to have purchased; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 26, 2021 Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") and Culper Research ("Culper") released commentary on SOS, claiming that the Company was an intricate "pump and dump" scheme that used fake addresses and doctored photos of crypto rigs to create an illusion of success. On this news, SOS's ADR price declined by $1.27 per ADR, or approximately 21.03%, to close at $4.77 per ADR on February 26, 2021. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email: gstone@whafh.com, kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774 This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] STAFFMARK GROUP: Misclassifies Recruiters, Ruiz Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ VERONICA RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STAFFMARK GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-00664 (C.D. Cal, April 9, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code, and the California Business and Professional Code. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Recruiter from approximately August 2015 until May 2018. According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff and other similarly situated recruiters as exempt employees. Although they regularly worked more than 40 hours each week, the Defendant allegedly did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime wages at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. The Plaintiff brings this complaint seeking to recover from the Defendant all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalty damages, litigation costs, attorneys' fees, pre- ad post-judgment interest, and other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. Staffmark Group, LLC is an employment and staffing company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. PARMET PC 340 S. Lemon Ave., #1228 Walnut, CA 91789 Tel: (713) 999-5228 Fax: (713) 999-1187 E-mail: matt@parmet.law STAR MULTI: Sirmons et al. Seek Homecare Providers' Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case, MI'JETTE SIRMONS and TIFFANY HOUSEHOLDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STAR MULTI CARE HOLDING CORP., EFCC ACQUISITION CORP., and AMSERY HEALTHCARE OF OHIO INC. d/b/a CENTRAL STAR HOME HEALTH SERVIES and d/b/a EXTENDED FAMILY CARE OF OHIO, and STEPHEN STERNBACH, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00456-DSC (W.D. Penn., April 9, 2021), challenges the Defendants' unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were jointly employed by the Defendants as hourly-paid and non-exempt homecare providers in the positions of Licensed Practical Nurses, State Tested Nurse's Aides, and Home Health Aides. Plaintiff Sirmons worked for the Defendants from approximately April 2018 to April 2020, while Plaintiff Householder was from approximately September 8, 2020 to December 23, 2020. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant did not pay them and other similarly situated hourly homecare providers for the time they spent travelling from one patient location to the next in the same workday and did not count this time as hours worked for the workweek. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours in a workweek, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated homecare providers were not properly paid overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. Additionally, the Defendants failed to make, keep and preserve records of all the hours worked by their homecare providers, the Plaintiffs allege. The Plaintiffs bring this collective and class action complaint against the Defendants seeking to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, pre- and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Corporate Defendants individually and jointly operate as an enterprise providing various home health care services. They share operational control over significant aspects of the day-to-day functions of the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees. The Individual Defendant Sternbach has been the Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Star Multi Care Services since 1987. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robi J. Braishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 34 N. High St., Ste. 502 Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (614) 824-5770 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com - and – Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Tel: (330) 470-4428 Fax: (330) 754-1430 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com STATER BROS: Ross Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Cheylyn Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Stater Bros. Markets, Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. CIVDS1902518 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:21-cv-00720 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor. Stater Bros. Markets -- https://www.staterbros.com/ -- is a local grocery store serving communities, known for their meats, fresh produce, fresh handcrafted sushi, and bringing new favorites.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Brendan W Brandt, Esq. VARNER AND BRANDT LLP 3750 University Avenue Suite 610 Riverside, CA 92501-3323 Phone: (951) 274-7777 Fax: (951) 274-7770 Email: brendan.brandt@varnerbrandt.com SUFFOLK, NY: Judge Certifies Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael O'Keeffe, writing for Newsday, reports that a federal judge this week certified a lawsuit accusing the Suffolk Police Department of engaging in widespread racial discrimination against Latinos as a class action, a decision lawyers for the plaintiffs hope will lead to the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee policing in the county. An attorney with LatinoJustice, a Manhattan-based civil rights organization that filed the lawsuit in 2015 on behalf of 21 Latinos who live in Suffolk, said the decision by U.S. District Judge William F. Kuntz will also result in the department developing -- and enforcing -- policies that promote equitable policing. "Class-action status puts us in a position to force meaningful and important reforms," said Jose L. Perez, deputy general counsel for LatinoJustice who called the ruling "a major milestone." The number of members of the class -- individuals subjected to traffic or pedestrian stops since 2014, exceeds 100,000 -- according to court papers. Suffolk County officials and the police department declined to comment April 7, saying they could not discuss pending litigation. On April 5, Kuntz agreed to a report and recommendation written by U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom, who ruled on March 12 that the case should proceed as a class action for purposes of injunctive relief, such as the appointment of an independent monitor or implementation of policies promoting fair policing. Bloom denied class-action status for monetary damages, saying it would be unwieldy to conduct hearings for thousands of individuals allegedly impacted by police misconduct and poor practices. The Suffolk County Legislature approved a police reform plan last month that officials said would curb bias among officers. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ordered law-enforcement agencies to submit police reform by April 1 or risk losing state funding. Cuomo's order came after the nationwide protests sparked by the death of George Floyd while in the custody of Minneapolis police. Civil rights activists said the Suffolk plan did not go far enough and have argued for strong reforms, including creation of a review board that would investigate complaints of police misconduct. Atara Miller, an attorney for LatinoJustice, said the organization could negotiate a settlement with the county or the judge could order reforms, including appointment of an independent monitor. "That is one of our principle goals," said Miller, a partner with the Manhattan-based Milbank law firm. The defendants in the lawsuit also include Scott A. Greene, a former Suffolk police sergeant who was accused of stopping Latino motorists in the Farmingville area and shaking them down for cash, usually $100. A Suffolk jury convicted Greene of grand larceny and other charges in 2016, and he was sentenced to one to three years in prison. Greene, who is representing himself in the case, did not return a request for comment. According to the lawsuit, the discriminatory behavior by Suffolk police continued even after the U.S. Justice Department launched a federal investigation into the department after an immigrant from Ecuador, Marcelo Lucero, was killed by a group of teenagers in Patchogue in 2008. Suffolk police officials entered an agreement to reform its policies with the U.S. Justice Department in 2014. Suffok police have made progress in complying with the agreement, according to a justice department report, which rated the department in "substantial compliance" in three out of six main categories. Suffolk officials argued in court papers that Greene was a "lone wolf" and that its police department using the agreement with the justice department to reform its practices. Suffolk police are not in full compliance with the Justice Department agreement nearly seven years later, Miller said. Enforcement of the agreement was lax during the Trump administration, he said. "The lives of Latino residents of Suffolk County should not be subject to the whims of the federal government," Miller said. [GN] SUTTER HEALTH: California AG Seeks Slice of Antitrust Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce E. Cutler, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that the California Attorney General's Office and lawyers who sued Sutter Health alleging antitrust violations are seeking 32% of the $575 million settlement that would end class-action litigation. The fee petition comes ahead of a July 21 hearing in California Superior Court for final approval of the proposed all-cash settlement in the case over whether the health-care behemoth manipulated its market power to boost prices. The fees cover 216,661 hours for the five law firms representing the United Food & Commercial Workers & Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT) and the self-funded plans in the class action and for state attorneys. "It's a lot of zeroes but given the amount of money that Sutter has been able to make using its market power, it's more a situation where the attorneys' fees are in line," said Jaime Staples King, a University of Auckland health law professor. "I think over seven years the amount of time and energy and hours to bring this case of this kind is unparalleled in the health-care antitrust" space, said Staples King. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC; Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick PLLC; Pillsbury & Coleman LLP; Farella Braun + Martel LLP; and McCracken, Stemerman & Holsberry LLP represented the class while the California Attorney General's Office represented the state. The lawyers cited the complex nature of the case against Sutter, and the relief obtained in the settlement reached moments before a potentially months-long jury trial was set to begin in October 2019. Over the next 10 to 13 years, the injunctive relief will not only moderate the prices of Sutter, it should also moderate the prices of non-Sutter providers in Northern California, benefiting health-care consumers throughout the Northern California hospital market -- a market with annual revenue of over $20 billion, the fee filing said. In short, plaintiffs' counsel obtained exceptional results, the filing said. "This is a landmark settlement," University of Texas Law professor Charles Silver said in a filing supporting the fee motion. "Considering only the $575 million cash component, it is one of the largest state court class action settlements ever. It exceeds all but a small fraction of federal class action settlements, too." Long, Costly Case The San Francisco Superior Court case was filed in 2014. The docket has more than 5,100 entries. The attorneys analyzed hundreds of millions of claims data records subpoenaed from insurance companies and needed to prove overcharges spanning 16 years at 27 different Sutter hospitals, the filing said. The Attorney General's Office under the proposal would receive 2% of the fund, and class counsel, who took the case on a contingency basis, 30%. The class attorneys also seek $21.3 million in costs for the case filed in 2014, largely to pay for hiring experts. "Together, we conducted ourselves as a single virtual law firm, efficiently combining the many talents of the various legal professionals that were necessary to successfully represent UEBT and overcome what would soon become a scorched-earth defense by Sutter and the five highly skilled law firms and scores of lawyers that represented it in this litigation," wrote Richard Grossman, Pillsbury & Coleman partner and co-lead counsel. The filing notes that Sutter had more than 60 outside attorneys. Jones Day and Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller represented Sutter. Redgrave LLP; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP; and Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP also at times represented Sutter. The 32% falls within the range of percentages that prevails in the private market, which typically runs from 25% to 40% "even in cases with the potential to generate enormous recoveries," said Silver, who testifies as an expert on attorneys' fees. The settlement contains an extensive package of injunctive reforms, to last for at least 10 years, that are designed to prevent Sutter Health from abusing its market power in the future by such measures as requiring cost and quality transparency, Silver said. "We think the litigation and settlement was a big deal—Sutter was creating a template that other hospital chains were seeking to emulate," said Anthony Wright, executive director of Health Access California | Health Access Foundation. The case is UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health, Cal. Super. Ct., No. CGC-14-538451, Motion filed. [GN] SYMMETRY ENERGY: Face Certified Roses Suit Over Unfair Gas Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ CERTIFIED ROSES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYMMETRY ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00133-JRG (E.D. Tex., April 15, 2021) is a class action on behalf of all Symmetry customers who were charged excessive prices and costs for natural gas during and because of Winter Storm Uri of February 2021 (the "winter storm"). The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the Defendant supplied natural gas and wrongfully passed on certain costs to its customers. The Defendant saw an opportunity for profit, bypassed its contractual obligations, and took advantage of its customers during a vulnerable time. The Defendant charged the Plaintiff $248,943.48 for its gas use in February 2021, an over 2,000% increase from its February 2020 bill, the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant substantially harmed the Plaintiffs and the proposed class by charging excessive prices and costs for natural gas during and because of a disaster, says the suit. CenterPoint Energy Services, Inc. provides energy distribution and transmission services. The Company offers natural gas and related energy management services for commercial, industrial, and wholesale customers. CenterPoint Energy Gas Services serves its clients in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Derek H. Potts, Esq. T. Micah Dortch, Esq. J. Ryan Fowler, Esq. POTTS LAW FIRM, LLP 3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 963-8881 E-mail: dpotts@potts-law.com mdortch@potts-law.com rfowler@potts-law.com TATA CONSULTANCY: Fails to Pay Overtime Premiums, Alcala Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS ALCALA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03114 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant around November 2018 to work as a "Systems Administrator" at its New York offices located at 450 W 15th Street, New York 10011 until he was terminated around November 2018. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was misclassified by the Defendant as an exempt employee and he was paid a fixed annual salary of $75,000. Despite working a total of around 45-50 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime premiums for work he performed in excess of 40 hours per workweek. In addition, the Defendant did not track the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees work hours despite having a punch clock to record their hours work. The Defendant also failed to provide its employees with proper wage statements, says the suit. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees have suffered damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the FLSA. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, interest, and other compensation pursuant to the FLSA. Tata Consultancy Services Limited provides information technology and consultancy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Brown, Esq. BROWN, KWON & LAM LLP 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Tel: (718) 971-0326 Fax: (718) 795-1642 E-mail: wbrown@bkllawyers.com TCM HEALTH: Yuan et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ ZUOBIAO YUAN, XIAOTIAN HE, and LILI TIAN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. TCM HEALTH CENTER, INC., THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE, INC., doing business as AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACUPUNCTURE AND ORIENTAL MEDICINE, INC., CHANGZHEN GONG, WEI LIU, and the successors of the American Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc. and TCM Health Center, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-00963 (D. Minn., April 9, 2021) bring this collective and class action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged violation of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants as acupuncturists and acupuncture instructors, allege that the Defendants intentionally deprived them and other similarly situated acupuncturists and acupuncture instructors of straight time and overtime compensation for all their hours worked. Purportedly, the Defendants required them to work long hours due to staffing and scheduling needs, which resulted to routinely working 50 to 80 hours to ensure patients received the care needed. The Defendants, however, did not properly compensated them for all hours they worked and even deducted 5% of all their wages earned, the Plaintiffs contend. The Plaintiffs also assert that throughout their employment with the Defendants, the Defendants willfully failed to provide them with meal breaks, maintain records of all hours they worked, and provide them with proper wage statements. On behalf of themselves and other similarly situated acupuncturists and acupuncture instructors, the Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid wages from the Defendants, as well as liquidated damages and civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. The American Academy of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Inc. d/b/a American Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Inc. operates a private educational institution that focuses on teaching traditional Chinese medicine and techniques. It is operated in conjunction with Defendant TCM Health Center, Inc., which operates a group of clinics that offer acupuncture and massage services to the public. Changzhen Gong and Wei Liu jointly operate AAAOM and TCM during the relevant time periods. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard Liu, Esq. INNOVATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, P.C. 400 S. 4th St., Suite 401 Minneapolis, MN, US 55415 Tel: (626) 344-8949 E-mail: Richard.liu@consultils.com TEXAS: Order on Hegar's Plea to Jurisdiction in Best Buy Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Best Buy Stores, Inc., through its assignees Paul Denucci, Rockey Piazza, and Linda Piazza, Appellant v. Glenn Hegar, in His Capacity as Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of Texas, and Ken Paxton, in His Capacity as Attorney General of The State of Texas, Appellees, Case No. 03-19-00246-CV (Tex. App.), the Court of Appeals of Texas for the Third District, Austin, affirms the district court's order granting the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction. In 2018, Assignees Best Buy, through its assignees Paul Denucci, Rockey Piazza, and Linda Piazza, sued the Comptroller in district court for a tax refund of $9,130,865.86 plus interest under Chapter 112 of the Texas Tax Code and for "limited declaratory findings." The Comptroller responded with a plea to the jurisdiction. Between 1998 and 2007, Best Buy had a rebate program for certain goods Texas customers purchased from Best Buy. Pursuant to its rebate program, when the customers submitted rebate forms, Best Buy provided a partial refund of the retail price but did not refund any of the collected sales tax the customers paid on the full retail price. "In the sales tax context, tax is collected by a seller adding the sales tax to an initial sales price and then charging that amount to the buyer as part of the new sales price," and "a person who collects a tax holds that money in trust for the State." "When such a tax is charged to a buyer, the buyer's understanding is that the portion of the sale attributed to tax will be paid to the government," and "the buyer also knows that any profit the seller makes in the transaction is through the sales price alone." Best Buy remitted the collected taxes for the full retail price to the State. The Assignees filed suit individually and as a class action against Best Buy, seeking a refund directly from Best Buy, but later amended their petition to seek an assignment from Best Buy of the right to seek a tax refund from the Comptroller. Best Buy initially proposed a settlement to refund the sales tax to members of the class if Best Buy could receive assurances of a credit for the refunds either by agreement with the Comptroller or by declaratory judgment. The Assignees then amended their petition to add the Comptroller as a Defendant, the Comptroller filed a plea to the jurisdiction, the district court severed the individual claims and dismissed the class action claim to compel an assignment of refund rights from Best Buy, and the Assignees appealed the dismissal. Reversing the district court's judgment and remanding the case, the Appellate Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the Assignees' claims to compel Best Buy to assign its tax refund rights and to certify a class, but we did not opine on the merits of those claims. The Assignees and Best Buy then settled their case subject to a class fairness hearing by agreeing that Best Buy would assign to the Assignees and individual class members its right to bring a tax refund claim. The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes only, appointed the class counsel, and granted the class counsel the power of attorney to represent the members in their individual claims against the Comptroller. After the class counsel filed written claims with the Comptroller on behalf of the individual class members, the Comptroller denied the refund claims, the class counsel filed suit in district court, and the district court granted the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to appoint the class counsel to represent the class members in the presentation of their individual refund claims to the Comptroller, that the portions of the order purporting to appoint the class counsel as the counsel for the individuals were void, and that the Assignees did not properly exhaust their administrative remedies because the class counsel lacked authority to file individual refund claims on the class members' behalf. In 2016, the Assignees then dismissed Best Buy from the suit, "agreeing, considering the law of the case, that the Assignees have no basis for a claim for damages against Best Buy." Best Buy in turn agreed to an injunction compelling it to assign the class its claims for a tax refund before the Comptroller. The Assignees and Best Buy filed an "Agreed Final Injunction and Class Certification Order" in district court, which the district court signed in July 2017. The Agreed Order defined the class to include "all individuals or entities who redeemed a mail-in, retailer rebate for a taxable purchase made from Best Buy where the purchase occurred on or after March 1, 1998 and before July 16, 2007"; appointed the class counsel; and ordered Best Buy to execute an assignment to the class of its right to a tax refund. The Agreed Order also ordered "the Class to accept this assignment in lieu of any sales tax refund paid directly by Best Buy, recognizing that the Class will attempt to recover any sales taxes owed to the Class from the Comptroller," and "the Class Counsel" -- "if the Class succeeds and recovers money" -- to "return to the Court with a proposal for distributing that recovery, inclusive of distribution expenses and a request to recover Class Counsel's fees and expenses from the money recovered from the Comptroller." In August 2017, Best Buy assigned its right to request a tax refund to the Assignees "individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated," and the Assignees substituted in place of Best Buy as the claimants in the pending administrative hearing for the tax refund. In April 2018, the Comptroller denied the tax refund claim, concluding that the Texas Tax Code does not authorize a class to file a tax refund claim or give the Comptroller authority to grant a class action refund claim. After the Comptroller denied the Assignees' motion for rehearing, the Assignees brought the underlying suit in district court. The Comptroller responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, raising five grounds: (1) the Assignees' claim for declaratory relief seeks an impermissible redundant remedy, (2) the Assignees' rehearing motion failed to state any grounds of error that could result in their entitlement to a tax refund, (3) the Assignees could not receive a refund because Best Buy never refunded the taxes to the customers as required by Section 111.104(f) of the Texas Tax Code, (4) Best Buy had already assigned its right to a tax refund prior to bringing the underlying administrative refund claim, and (5) the Texas Tax Code does not provide for a class action tax refund suit. The district court granted the plea, and the Assignees appealed from the dismissal. On appeal, the Assignees raise four issues, one of which we consider dispositive: whether the district court erred in dismissing the Assignees' claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a question the Appellate Court reviews de novo. In response to this issue, the Comptroller argues that the district court did not err in dismissing the plea, reasserting the argument that because Best Buy never refunded the sales tax to the customers who paid the tax as required by Section 111.104(f), the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Assignees' suit. The Appellate Court conclude that the Assignees have pled facts that would establish standing based on Best Buy's being personally aggrieved or that there is any evidence in the record of a personal injury to Best Buy. As Best Buy merely collected the sales tax from the customers, "holding that money in trust for the State," and then remitted the sales tax to the State, Best Buy has not been personally aggrieved unless it has refunded at least some of the sales tax to the customers. And after reviewing the entire record, the undisputed evidence shows that Best Buy has not been personally aggrieved. The Agreed Order states that the Assignees accepted the assignment of Best Buy's right to bring a tax refund suit "in lieu of any sales tax refund paid directly by Best Buy." The Assignees argue that "under the statute governing taxes, Best Buy need not be personally aggrieved to pursue its refund; it need only be a tax permitted seller." But, the Appellate Court opines that the Texas Supreme Court has held that the Legislature cannot set a "lower" standard "than that set by the general doctrine of standing" because "courts' constitutional jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by statute." Thus, whether Best Buy has statutory standing does not resolve the issue of whether it has constitutional standing. The Appellate Court recognizes the implications of its holding: Best Buy has not been personally injured and therefore does not have constitutional standing until it has refunded at least some of the taxes to its customers, but the Texas Tax Code permits it as the person who "directly" paid the sales taxes to the State to file a tax refund claim (although it cannot recover until it has refunded all taxes and interests); the Assignees have alleged individual injuries that potentially could be redressed by a tax refund, but the Texas Tax Code prohibits a tax refund claim in their individual capacities when they did not "directly" pay the sales tax to the State; and the Texas Tax Code permits Best Buy to assign its claims to the Assignees, but the Assignees may rely only on an injury to Best Buy to establish standing. The Legislature chose to amend Section 111.104(b) to permit the filing of a tax refund claim by a person who "directly" paid the tax to the State but not by a person who paid sales tax to a vendor who remitted the tax to the State. It is not the Appellate Court's province to evaluate the wisdom of the Legislature's choice in enacting policies; its duty is to apply the law as written. As the law is currently written and given the constitutional standing requirements to bring suit, the Appellate Court cannot conclude on this record that the Assignees have constitutional standing as Best Buy's assignees to bring Best Buy's tax refund claim. For these reasons, it overrules the Assignees' first issue. Because this issue is dispositive of the appeal, the Appellate Court does not consider the Assignees' other issues. In light of the foregoing, the Appellate Court concludes that Best Buy lacks standing to bring its tax refund suit -- and accordingly, that the Assignees lack standing to bring suit in its place. It affirms the trial court's judgment granting the Comptroller's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the case. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/8kdwffas from Leagle.com. TOPCO ASSOCIATES: Bradley Sues Over Mislabeled Flushable Wipes -------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLEY BRADLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOPCO ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-03303 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2021) alleges that the Defendants mislabeled the TopCare Flushable Wipes as flushable. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the TopCare Flushable Wipes are not flushable, in that they do not break apart or disperse in a reasonable period of time after flushing, resulting in clogs or other sewage damage. The complaint further asserts that mislabeling of the TopCare Flushable Wipes renders the product completely worthless. There is no value to consumers for purportedly "flushable" wipes that are not actually flushable. Nevertheless, TopCare Flushable Wipes are labeled and sold as an alternative to toilet paper, and they command a significant price premium over non-flushable wipes and traditional toilet paper, the suit added. Topco Associates, LLC operates as a strategic sourcing company. The Company provides procurement, quality assurance, packaging, and other services for its food industry member-owners and customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: fklorczyk@bursor.com -and- Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Brittany S. Scott, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com bscott@bursor.com TRAVELERS HOME: Fails to Pay Statutory Interest, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- GULF COAST INJURY CENTER, LLC A/A/O JORDAN RIMERT, v. THE TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 124039881 (Fla. Cir., Hillsborough Cty., March 30, 2021) is an action asserting a class action claim for declaratory relief pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Statutes. The Defendant allegedly failed to pay the statutory interest required by Florida Statutes section 627.736(4)(d) because the Defendant did not calculate interest in accordance with Florida Statutes section 55.03, which sets a variable interest rate, but instead paid interest at a fixed rate from the date of notice of the covered loss. The Plaintiff contends that for all claims similarly situated, where the Defendant made an overdue payment to an insured or the insured's assignee, Defendant calculated and paid interest at a fixed rate rather than the variable rate set forth in Florida Statutes. The Plaintiff is a Florida corporation authorized to do business, and doing business, in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Defendant is a foreign for profit corporation authorized to transact, and transacting, insurance business in Hillsborough County, Florida, and at all times material hereto provided no-fault (Personal Injury Protection (PIP)) insurance coverage throughout the State of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence M. Kopelman, Esq. LAWRENCE M. KOPELMAN, P.A. 7900 Peters Road, Suite B-200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 462-6855 Facsimile:(954) 206-0188 E-mail: LMK@kopelblank.com - and - Jeremy Dover, Esq. DEMESMIN & DOVER, PLLC 91650 SE 17 th Street, Suite 100 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (866) 954-6673 Facsimile: (954) 916-8499 E-mail: PIP-Pleadings@attorneysoftheinjured.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Manatt Attorneys Discuss ERISA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph E. Laska, Esq., and Nathaniel A. Cohen, Esq., of Manatt, disclosed that on February 1, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero entered final judgment in Wit v. United Behavioral Health, No. 3:14-cv-2346 (N.D. Cal.). Wit is an ERISA class action concerning the propriety of certain guidelines previously used by United Behavioral Health (UBH) when adjudicating claims for outpatient and residential inpatient behavioral health treatments. The Wit court appointed a special master to oversee UBH's compliance with the monumental task of "reprocessing" more than 67,000 claims for mental health treatment, as well as with other detailed declaratory and injunctive remedies. This "Health Update" reviews developments in the Wit litigation and discusses implications of the court's remedies order for health plans, insurers and attorneys advising those entities. UBH sought a stay pending appeal of the reprocessing remedy, which the district court denied. But on February 12, 2021, the Ninth Circuit stayed the reprocessing remedy pending UBH's long-anticipated appeal of the numerous adverse rulings in Wit. The Wit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law As a reminder, on March 5, 2019, following a ten-day bench trial, the Wit court issued a 106-page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FFCL) addressing certain specific level of care guidelines used at the time by UBH when assessing the medical necessity of outpatient and residential inpatient mental health and substance use disorder treatment. Based on testimony from two of plaintiffs' retained experts and UBH's in-house experts, the court undertook to define eight specific "generally accepted standards of care" and found that UBH's guidelines fell short of each purported standard. See Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2019 WL 1033730, at *17-40 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2019). The Wit FFCL left open the issue of the appropriate remedy in light of UBH's prior adjudication of tens of thousands of behavioral health claims under the guidelines the court deemed deficient. The court ordered further briefing addressing remedies issues. The Wit Remedies Order On November 3, 2020, the Wit court issued a remedies order directing the following categories of sweeping relief against UBH. Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 2020 WL 6479273 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020) (Remedies Order). 1. Declaratory judgment First, the court entered a detailed declaratory judgment stating that (1) the UBH guidelines at issue fell short of all eight generally accepted standards of care articulated in the court's FFCL; (2) as a result, each of UBH's adverse benefit determinations at issue in the case was "wrongful and made in violation of plan terms and ERISA"; (3) the UBH guidelines "deviate[d] . . . in a multitude of ways" from criteria published by the American Society for Addiction Medicine (ASAM); (4) UBH violated Illinois, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Texas state laws through its use of the guidelines over various periods; and (5) UBH violated ERISA fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (a)(1)(D) "when it developed, revised and applied the Guidelines." Remedies Order at *48-50. 2. Permanent injunction The court also issued a permanent injunction strictly governing UBH's behavioral health coverage determinations over a ten-year period -- and in some aspects, apparently indefinitely. The Remedies Order states that the court will retain jurisdiction over the action for the duration of the injunction. Id. at *54-57. Under the Remedies Order, UBH is permanently enjoined from using any of the specific guidelines judged inadequate in the declaratory judgment when determining whether residential mental health treatment services are consistent with generally accepted standards of care and therefore covered under the plan. Id. at *54. More broadly, UBH is also permanently enjoined from using any guidelines that apply any of a long list of mandatory prerequisites for coverage detailed in a joint "consolidated claims chart" filed in the Wit litigation. See id. These coverage criteria prohibited under the injunction generally fall into the following categories as characterized by the Wit plaintiffs: overemphasis on acuity; failure to consider effective treatment of co-occurring conditions; drive toward lower levels of care rather than "erring on the side of caution"; preclusion of coverage for treatment to maintain a level of function; lack of motivation as grounds for denying coverage; and "overbroad" definitions of custodial care and "overly narrow" views of improvement and active treatment. See Consolidated Claims Chart p. 7, ECF No. 404-2 (Feb. 12, 2018), Wit v. United Behavioral Health, No. 3:14-cv-2346 (N.D. Cal.). The court further ordered UBH, for a ten-year period, to "make any and all coverage-related determinations under ERISA-governed plans about whether services are consistent with generally accepted standards of care according to criteria that are consistent with generally accepted standards of care, as established in [the court's] FFCL, and the requirements of any applicable state law." Remedies Order at *54 (emphasis added). UBH must use specific sets of criteria when adjudicating mental health claims for individuals, based on the individual's age: specific criteria for adults, for children and adolescents ages 6-18, and for children age 5 or younger. Id. at *55. The injunction also requires UBH to develop and implement two training programs for care advocates, peer reviewers, external clinical consultants, and other personnel under the supervision of a special master. First, UBH must establish a training program addressing its implementation and application of the newly required coverage criteria. Second, UBH must establish a training program, including for senior and executive management, on UBH's "duties under ERISA, including what it means to be an ERISA fiduciary and to administer benefit plans solely in the interests of participants and beneficiaries, as well as the need to comply with plan terms." See id. at *55-56. 3. Reprocessing order The remedies order also mandates an unprecedented "reprocessing" remand to UBH as claims administrator. Under the order, UBH must reprocess the full scope of over 67,000 benefits determinations for the classes "in a manner consistent with" the court's FFCL and remedies order, at UBH's expense. Id. at *51. The court's reprocessing order prescribes the processes UBH must apply on remand. UBH must allow for class members and their providers to supplement the administrative record at will with additional clinical and billing information supporting the claim, and must affirmatively contact all class members who do not provide that information within 90 days of notice from the class administrator. UBH must also apply specific level of care criteria on remand, consistent with the permanent injunction. Id. at *51-52. The reprocessing order also requires that any new determination by UBH to deny coverage in full or in part be considered an initial adverse benefit determination under 29 C.F.R. § 2560.503-1, such that all administrative appeal remedies under the plan will be available. And any adverse determination on remand must include "specific and detailed findings supporting the determination, including citations to the clinical evidence and the specific provisions of the applicable criteria on which UBH's conclusion is based." Id. at *53. Even if UBH approves a claim on remand, it must still provide its "specific and detailed findings" in its notification to the class member. See id. UBH may not offset the benefits that it calculates are due to the class member against any benefits previously paid to the class member or the relevant provider in connection with other services. In calculating the amount of benefit owed, UBH "shall include benefits owed for all services the class member received at the level of care at issue in the [remanded determination] that UBH finds are consistent with the criteria [mandated in the remedies order], regardless of whether the class member [previously] submitted a post-service claim for them. . . ." Id. Once UBH completes all reprocessing, it must provide a certification and report to the court detailing the total number of reprocessed requests by level of care, the number of class members whose requests were denied on remand, the number reversed on remand, the number receiving a benefit payment following reprocessing, and "the lowest, highest, median, and average amount of the payments, by level of care." Id. at *54. 4. Special master Finally, the Remedies Order calls for the appointment of a special master "to serve as an independent monitor to oversee and verify UBH's compliance with [the Remedies Order]." Id. at *56. On January 27, 2021, the court appointed Douglas R. Young of Farella Braun + Martel LLP as special master. The special master issued his first report on March 29, 2021, addressing the status of UBH's implementation of the coverage standards and training programs required by the Remedies Order. The Ninth Circuit Stays Reprocessing Pending Appeal Immediately after the Remedies Order was issued, UBH moved the district court to stay only the reprocessing remedy pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. On December 28, 2020, the district court denied even this limited stay. The court observed, however, that neither side had demonstrated any compelling public interest bearing on a stay of the reprocessing remedy; the court also acknowledged that some of its rulings involve issues of first impression and raise "thorny" legal questions. UBH then moved the Ninth Circuit for a similar stay of the reprocessing remedy. UBH argued, among other things, that a stay was warranted because otherwise UBH would be required to complete reprocessing before any appellate merits review of the novel liability and remedies findings in the district court's orders. UBH also highlighted that it was not seeking a stay of any forward-looking remedy, such as the injunction governing UBH's current and future benefit decisions, and that the district court's award of pre- and post-judgment interest mitigated any impact of delayed recovery of benefits after reprocessing. On February 1, 2021, the Wit court entered a final judgment incorporating all of the substantive rulings in the Remedies Order. Wit, ECF No. 531. Then, in a concise order entered on February 12, 2021, the Ninth Circuit granted UBH's motion for a stay of the district court's reprocessing order pending appeal. Analysis The Wit appeal is expected to address, among other matters, important issues bearing on the scope of equitable remedies available under ERISA—particularly the propriety of mandated class-wide "reprocessing." No federal appeals court has recognized the type of reprocessing ordered in Wit on a class basis under ERISA. In ordering reprocessing, the Wit court relied on Saffle v. Sierra Pac. Power Co. Bargaining Unit Long Term Disability Income Plan, 85 F.3d 455, 458-60 (9th Cir. 1996). See Remedies Order at *23, *30. In Saffle, the Ninth Circuit ordered remand of only an individual ERISA benefit claim to the administrator for reprocessing. See Saffle, 85 F.3d at 457-58, 460-61. The Wit court's extrapolation of the individual remedy ordered in Saffle to the diverse class claims at issue in Wit may be a key issue litigated on appeal. While plaintiffs' attorneys in other actions have sought reprocessing remedies inspired by Wit, to date no court has relied on the Wit Remedies Order as authority for reprocessing. Courts have, however, addressed efforts by the plaintiffs' bar to expand into other contexts the Wit court's finding that certain UBH coverage guidelines deviated from generally accepted standards of care. Several courts have declined to "extend the factual findings of Wit" to other ERISA claims involving other coverage guidelines, where the court "does not have before it the kind of expert testimony and other evidence necessary to decide whether these guidelines, in the context of this Plan, are improper." See Josef K. v. California Physicians' Serv., 477 F. Supp. 3d 886, 897 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (emphasis in original); see also Andrew C. v. Oracle Am. Inc. Flexible Benefit Plan, 474 F. Supp. 3d 1066, 1081 (N.D. Cal. 2020); Julie L. v. Excellus Health Plan, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 3d 38, 48 n.4 (W.D.N.Y. 2020). Any reversal or modification of the Wit court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as to the UBH coverage guidelines or as to the generally accepted standards of care among practitioners could have wide-ranging effects in other actions challenging behavioral health coverage guidelines. Conclusion The Wit Remedies Order and other rulings in the litigation are far-reaching. If upheld, the litigation will likely have significant impacts beyond the parties involved. Practitioners, health plans and health insurers would be wise to track UBH's long-awaited appeal to the Ninth Circuit of all adverse rulings in Wit. [GN] UNITED STATES: Colorado Woman Joins Title IX Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Hernadez, writing for Denver Post, reports that a Longmont woman and former Colorado Christian University student is now part of a class-action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, which asks the agency to better protect LGBTQ students at taxpayer-funded, religiously affiliated educational institutions. Journey Mueller, 21, previously spoke to The Denver Post about harrowing accounts of conversion therapy she said she experienced at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood. A spokesperson for Colorado Christian University did not immediately return a request for comment on April 6. There are 33 plaintiffs from across the country, Mueller included, who allege similar experiences at their institutions. "I chose to be a part of this because it shakes me to my core to know that there are so many students in this nation who are legally being mistreated, discriminated against, bullied, abused, expelled, and traumatized by schools that they trusted to provide them with a safe education," Mueller wrote in a Facebook. "I know that there have been countless students before me who have gone through similar experiences and countless students that are going through it as you're reading this. Young lives are being altered in very drastic, preventable ways. This is not OK." The lawsuit asks the Department of Education to overturn a rule allowing religious institutions to inform the department they are claiming a religious exemption to Title IX, the federal civil rights law intended to protect people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal money. "There's a statutory exemption to claim even if they are violating the law, even if they are causing severe harms, they are allowed to do that if they're doing it based on their religious beliefs," said attorney Paul Southwick, who is part of the class-action suit's legal team. In a statement to the Post, the U.S. Department of Education said the president's recent executive order reads: ‘it is the policy of my Administration that all students should be guaranteed an educational environment free from discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination in the form of sexual harassment, which encompasses sexual violence, and including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.'" Southwick said the religious exemption was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state because it allows "federally funded schools to practice discrimination using taxpayer dollars." Southwick added that CCU is not a "truly private" institution because it receives funding from the federal government through federal loan programs. Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors went into effect in 2019. The ban, which prohibits a state-licensed medical or mental health care provider from engaging in counseling with the goal of changing a patient's sexual orientation or gender identity, would not have protected Mueller because the law only applies to people under the age of 18 and does not include pastoral counseling. In the new lawsuit and previous interviews with The Denver Post, Mueller described being outed to CCU administration after confessing to her college roommates that she was questioning her sexuality. The administration offered her a choice to renounce her behavior and leave the school or renounce her behavior and undergo a university counseling program intended to make her identify as heterosexual or leave the school immediately, she said. After undergoing the university-mandated counseling, Mueller said her mental health diminished to a point that she needed to leave the institution and come out to her family. "I look back at journal entries from this time, and I am moved by the struggle and pain that I was facing," Mueller said. "There are several entries where on one page, I cry to God, committing to follow the rules of my program and end things with my newfound relationship. On the next, I write that the feelings I was experiencing were like none I had felt before, and wondered how I could deny myself from feeling so alive?" Mueller now feels empowered sharing her story and finding community among those who have faced similar hardships. "For the first time in a long time, I'm growing to love who I am," Mueller said. "Every day, I choose to keep moving forward. I can confidently say that I am a proud, strong, brave, resilient, and valid lesbian woman." [GN] UNITED STATES: Eastern University Students Join Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Faith Millender, writing for The Waltonian, reports that a recent survey by College Pulse and the Religious Exemption Accountability Project (REAP) detailed the harsh realities of LGBTQ+ students at Christian colleges. According to this survey, queer students at Christian universities are more likely to face harassment, isolation, and other adverse events, all of which create starkly different mental health outcomes than those of their cisgender-heterosexual peers. The report was conducted between January 28 and February 6, 2021 on 3,000 LGBTQ+ students enrolled in four-year degree programs at Christian colleges and universities. Findings demonstrate that 12% of students identify as non-heterosexual, 2% of students identify as a gender minority, and most of these sexual and gender minority students are closeted. The report details responses from queer students at Christian colleges, most of which are members of the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU). Sexual minority students were three times more likely to report depression and anxiety, and just as likely to have seriously considered suicide. Gender-nonconforming students are at an even higher risk; on average, gender minority students experience double the number of adverse experiences, are seven times more likely to experience sexual assault, and 22% have reported bullying. Nearly half (47%) of gender minority students at these Christian universities reported feeling they do not belong on their campus, compared to 29% of sexual minority students, and 17% of straight students. These realities contribute to vastly different collegiate and mental health experiences for queer students compared to straight students. This survey was commissioned by the REAP, an organization dedicated to advocating for the empowerment of queer students at taxpayer-funded religious colleges and universities. REAP is led by Director Paul Southwick, a queer lawyer who attended a Christian University and represents LGBTQ+ students, children, and employees in civil rights matters. "This discrimination and abuse is funded by taxpayers. These findings should serve as a wake-up call for all higher education stakeholders to address the ongoing abuse taking place at publicly funded institutions," said Southwick. He also explained that many Christian schools, while private, still receive federal funding in the form of grants and student financial aid. LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination protections in education were greatly expanded under Title IX during the Obama administration and the Biden administration's recent order to federally protect sexual orientation has put this issue under increased scrutiny. However, private colleges that receive federal funding can still claim an exemption on religious grounds. This poses a concerning fate for queer students at Christian universities and holds implications for our own private Christian university. Eastern University receives funding from the CCCU as well as the federal government. Eastern has very unclear narratives for queer students who attend the university, as well as for its faculty and staff members. Our queer students are not exempt from the statistics revealed by this report and are not fully protected by our student codes of conduct. Though students at Eastern University are permitted to be out on campus, the university's stance on the LGBTQ+ issue is ambiguous. Class after class of students have raised concerns on the implications of this stance for the safety and well-being of queer students attending Eastern University. A class action lawsuit has been filed against the Department of Education over this rights violation, including students from Eastern University and associated colleges. For more information about the Religious Exemption Accountability Project, or to join the fight, visit reap.org. [GN] UNITED STATES: Immigration Detainees' Class Action v. ICE Settled ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Robinson, writing for Dartmouth Week, reports that a landmark class action lawsuit settled has secured the continued release of federal immigrations detainees from the Bristol County Sheriff's Office Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility on Faunce Corner Road. Savino v. Souza, filed in March 2020, claimed that detainees in the facility were not adequately protected from Covid. It resulted in a federal judge last year ordering the preliminary release of dozens of detainees while barring ICE from admitting new people to detention without court approval. Others paid bond, obtained relief in their immigration cases, or were voluntarily released, ultimately reducing the number people held in the facility from 148 to seven. If approved by a judge, the settlement would allow released detainees to remain quarantined at home. It would also provide the remaining seven detainees the option of transferring to another New England ICE facility. The class action suit is believed to be the first lawsuit brought during the pandemic on behalf of all ICE detainees at a facility, as opposed to only individuals with certain medical risk factors, according to Lawyers for Civil Rights. The organization brought the lawsuit in conjunction with law firm WilmerHale, civil rights group Rights Behind Bars, and a team of students from the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School. In a press release, the group called the effort "enormously successful at protecting class members' health and well-being." WIRAC students said that all of the work for the plaintiffs was done pro bono. "The courage of [detainees] who spoke out about the danger they faced despite the risk of retaliation made this case possible," noted Yale Law student Fernando Quiroz, who worked on the case. "This case served as a template for similar facility-wide suits around the country that exposed ICE's widespread mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic." "While Bristol is notorious for its poor conditions and officials' civil rights abuses against individuals detained there, ICE's failure to ensure the basic safety of those it incarcerates is certainly not limited to [Bristol County House of Correction] -- or to the pandemic," Quiroz stated, referring to a report by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey that found the Sheriff's Office violated detainees' civil rights in using excessive force in an altercation at the facility on May 1, 2020. Spokesperson for the Sheriff's Office Jonathan Darling commented, "The settlement recognizes that the [Sheriff's Office] did nothing wrong and sets the stage for the ICE building to repopulate at full capacity." The agreement notes that the Sheriff's Office and ICE "specifically disclaim any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever," but are settling the lawsuit "to avoid further protracted litigation." "At the time this lawsuit was filed, no inmate or detainee had contracted Covid," the Sheriff's Office statement read. "Since the pandemic [began] in early March of last year, the Bristol County correctional facilities had complied meticulously with every directive and/or recommendation set out by the CDC or the Massachusetts Department of Public Health regarding disinfection and Covid prevention." Once the settlement agreement is approved following a fairness hearing on May 3, the order preventing ICE from admitting new detainees to the facility is set to expire. But Quiroz stated the students' belief that repopulating the facility "would set the stage for further harm to detained individuals and preserve the status quo of needless cruelty in immigration detention." He added that the availability of the Covid vaccine "does not preclude similar litigation in the future," noting that the effort to protect detained individuals' constitutional rights is not limited to the pandemic. According to Quiroz, many former detainees are also pursuing individual administrative damages claims from the facility, "especially those who were harmed" by sheriff's officers during the May 1 incident. Meanwhile Darling noted in the statement that "Bristol County remains proud of its efforts against the Covid epidemic and commends its officers and staff for their great efforts which resulted in the minimal effect Covid has had on the prisoners and staff." [GN] VAIL RESORTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lotshaw, writing for Vail Daily, reports that attorneys representing Vail Resorts employees who claim the company has systematically violated federal and state labor laws are arguing that their proposed class-action lawsuit should proceed not only under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, but under the labor laws of Colorado and eight other states where the company operates its ski resorts. Vail Resorts has argued that all claims outside of Colorado or the Fair Labor Standards Act should be dismissed. The pending lawsuit was filed Dec. 3 in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of Randy Dean Quint, John Linn and Mark Molina, who are current or former employees at Beaver Creek Resort. The lawsuit alleges Vail Resorts has for years failed to pay Quint, Linn and Molina -- along with thousands of other seasonal employees, including ski and snowboard instructors, ticket scanners and lift operators -- for their entire shifts, for "off the clock" work the company requires or accepts, for overtime, for training or for the use, purchase or maintenance of ski and snowboard equipment and cellphones the company requires workers to have. California-based attorneys Edward P. Dietrich and Benjamin Galdston filed the lawsuit on behalf of the three employees. They have declined to comment on the case. The lawsuit seeks collective action status under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and class-action status under the wage and labor laws of Colorado and eight other states: California, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. It preliminarily estimates damages at $100 million to $150 million. Twelve other people have since signed consent forms with Dietrich and Galdston to opt into the lawsuit against the company, all alleging to have worked for Vail Resorts and alleging they, too, were not properly paid for all time worked or for overtime or expenses, according to court records. In February, Vail Resorts filed its first reply to the lawsuit, a motion for partial dismissal. The company has not responded to requests for comment. The company -- which operates 34 ski resorts in North America, including Keystone Resort and Breckenridge Ski Resort in Summit County -- in its motion argued that Quint, Linn and Molina and the then-10 other people who have consented to join the lawsuit lack standing to pursue state labor law claims on behalf of themselves or other employees of Vail Resorts, arguing that all of the state labor law claims outside Colorado should be dismissed. "By their own allegations, plaintiffs never worked in those states and have not established they were otherwise subject to the laws of those states," states the company's motion, filed by the law firm Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. "As several cases from this district hold, plaintiffs have no injury under the laws of those states and lack standing to assert claims under those laws on behalf of themselves or a putative class." "Vail (Resorts) is wrong," Dietrich and Galdston argue in their response to the company's motion, filed on April 2. The attorneys cite several appellate court cases, "which Vail ignores," arguing those higher court rulings "make clear that named plaintiffs do not have to live or work in a state to have standing to assert state law claims on behalf of absent class members who live in those states." Additionally, a federal court can assert "supplemental jurisdiction" over state law claims the court would not otherwise have subject matter jurisdiction to hear, so long as the claims are all part of the same case or controversy as the claim over which the court has original jurisdiction. "Here the complaint alleges that all state law claims arise from the same Vail policies and practices and are part of the same case," the response states. According to a March 25 scheduling order prepared for the case, Vail Resorts has until April 23 to reply again in support of its motion for a partial dismissal of the lawsuit's claims in states outside of Colorado. Meanwhile, the parties in coming weeks are expected to start filing motions for or against requiring Vail Resorts to provide employee contact information for the attorneys to start sending notices of a conditional collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, though any potential class action would still have to be certified by the court. [GN] VALVE CORP: CD Projekt RED Removed From Steam Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Strickland, writing for TweakTown, reports that CD Projekt RED is no longer being accused as part of the anti-trust lawsuit against Valve, the company announced. In January, five gamers banded together and sued Valve for allegedly creating an environment that suppresses competition. The allegations surround a specific clause in the contracts that developers sign to put their games on Steam--the Most Favored Nations clause, which essentially requires devs to sell their games for the same price as they do on Steam. If a game is $19.99 on Steam, it needs to be $19.99 on PS4 and Xbox One. The suit alleges that the MFN clause restricts other storefronts and inhibits competition: "If this market functioned properly-that is, if the Steam MFN did not exist and platforms were able to compete on price-platforms competing with Steam would be able to provide the same (or higher) margins to game developers while simultaneously providing lower prices to consumers," the lawsuit says. A number of developers and publishers were lumped into the suit, including CD Projekt RED. Now the beleaguered Cyberpunk 2077 developer confirms they've been removed from the suit entirely. Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/78681/cd-projekt-has-been-removed-from-steam-anti-trust-lawsuit-allegations/index.html There's no updates on the substantial class action securities fraud lawsuits that CD Projekt faces for Cyberpunk 2077, however. In relation to Current Report no. 8/2021 of 29 January 2021, as an update to information concerning the filing of a class action lawsuit in the USA concerning potential infringement of US antitrust regulations by allegedly acceding to a "Most Favored Nations" clause in distribution agreements concluded with Valve Corporation, the Management Board of CD PROJEKT S.A. hereby announces that according to the plaintiffs' filing on 8 April 2021, the claims directed against CD PROJEKT S.A. and CD PROJEKT Inc. have been withdrawn, and, consequently, these entities have been excluded from the ongoing lawsuit. [GN] VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Benjamin Sues Over 90.5% Drop of Stock Price ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY BENJAMIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANSHU BHATNAGAR, CHRISTOPHER CUTCHENS, and VERUS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01001-PWG (D. Md., April 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements about Verus International's business and operations to artificially inflate the prices of Verus securities between June 17, 2019 through October 8, 2020. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclosed that: (i) Verus lacked the requisite resources, infrastructure and/or expertise to exploit its Big League Foods brand and its MLB license; (ii) the company issues in production ramp-up were not fully resolved to enable the company to fulfill customer orders; (iii) as a result, the company's prospects and outlook were not as represented; (iv) the company's internal controls for financial reporting and accounting were not sufficient with specific respect to stock-based compensation and classification of equity instruments; and (v) as a result, the company's financial results, outlook and prospects were materially worse than represented, the suit says. Furthermore, the Defendants made misleading statements about Verus' acquisition transaction with ZC Top Apparel Manufacturing (ZTAM) and failed to disclose that: (i) Verus' controlling interest was never officially registered in the Philippines; (ii) Verus lacked the requisite resources, infrastructure, and/or expertise to unlock the capacity of ZTAM's facilities, to the extent it existed; (iii) Verus' international trade experience was useless without a product; and (iv) even in the most optimistic case, the ZTAM transaction was unlikely to have an immediate financial impact on Verus. When the truth emerged, Verus' stock price closed at just $0.002 per share, a total decline 90.5% from when Verus announced its controlling interest in ZTAM, added the suit. Verus International, Inc. is a supplier of consumer food products, headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John B. Isbister, Esq. Daniel S. Katz, Esq. TYDINGS & ROSENBERG LLP One East Pratt Street, Suite 901 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 752-9700 Facsimile: (470) 727-5460 E-mail: jisbister@tydings.com dkatz@tydings.com - and – Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. Patrick Donovan, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 686-0114 E-mail: guiney@whafh.com donovan@whafh.com VMK INC: Faces Smith Suit Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN SMITH individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VMK, INC. d/b/a PURPLE LOTUS, a California limited liability Company, Case No. 5:21-cv-02200 (N.D. Calif., March 30, 2021) is an action against VMK Inc. to secure redress for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a cannabis dispensary. To promote its services, Defendant allegedly engages in aggressive unsolicited marketing, harming thousands of consumers in the process. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Joshua Moyer, Esq. SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A. 401 W. A street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 Facsimile: (786) 623-0915 E-mail: jmoyer@shamisgentile.com VROOM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Vroom, Inc. ("Vroom" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VRM) from November 11, 2020, through March 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Vroom Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose to investors:(1) that Vroom had not demonstrated that it was able to control and scale growth in respect to its salesforce to meet the demand for its products; (2) that, as a result, the Company was forced to discount aged inventory to move through its retail channels or liquidated in its wholesale channels; (3) that, as a result, the ecommerce gross profit per unit was reasonably likely to decline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 3, 2021, after the market closed, Vroom announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results in a press release. Therein, the Company reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery does not require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Vroom securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/vroominc-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-stock-fraud-383/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com [GN] VROOM INC: Kessler Topaz Reminds Investors of May 21 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Vroom, Inc. (NASDAQ: VRM) ("Vroom") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Vroom securities between June 9, 2020 and March 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Vroom securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 21, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at info@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/vroom-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=vroom Vroom operates an end-to-end ecommerce platform that sells fully reconditioned vehicles. The Class Period commences on June 9, 2020, when Vroom filed the prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO") with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on a Form 424B4, which incorporated and formed part of the registration statement for the initial public offering. According to the complaint, on March 3, 2021, Vroom announced its fourth quarter and full year 2020 financial results. Therein, Vroom reported that fourth quarter "Ecommerce Vehicle gross profit per unit decreased 13.1% to $878, driven primarily by lower sales margins, partially offset by improvements in inbound logistics and reconditioning costs per unit." Vroom also reported that for the fourth quarter, its "[n]et loss increased 41.9% to $60.7 million." During the accompanying earnings call, the defendants revealed that Vroom was suffering from serious sales and support bottlenecks which had severely constrained Vroom's growth and profits per vehicle. Following this news, Vroom's stock price fell $12.29 per share, or 27.9%, to close at $31.61 per share on March 4, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Vroom was unable to sell a significant portion of existing inventory as a result of inadequate sales personnel and overreliance on third-party sales support; (ii) Vroom's lack of adequate sales and support staff had resulted in severe growth constraints, degraded customer experience, lost sales opportunities and a greater than 10% increase in average days to sale for Vroom products; (iii) Vroom had been forced to mark down and liquidate existing inventory at fire sale prices; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Vroom's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Vroom investors may, no later than May 21, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] WASTE CONNECTIONS: Judge Dismisses Nuisance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Waste360 reports that a judge has dismissed with prejudice a nuisance class action lawsuit filed in federal court in Pennsylvania against Waste Connections. The lead plaintiff in the case, Ms. Robin Baptiste, had claimed she was bothered by odors that came from the company's Bethlehem Landfill, but during a March 2021 deposition, she admitted that the odor was from the Bethlehem Wastewater Treatment Plant. The decision by Judge Chad F. Kenney to dismiss the case with prejudice bars the plaintiffs from filing a future lawsuit against the defendant on the same issue. "We applaud Judge Kenney's decision to toss out this lawsuit," said National Waste & Recycling Association (NWRA) President and CEO Darrell Smith. "Landfills are highly engineered facilities that comply with stringent local, state and federal regulations." "This is an important reminder to NWRA members defending nuisance and other mass tort claims to always test the evidence," stated NWRA Chief Counsel & Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Jim Riley. "Members of the business community often will agree to pay large settlements to plaintiffs' law firms just to make them go away even if they are not at fault, but this only fuels more lawsuits. We are putting these firms on notice—not only will the waste and recycling industry challenge dubious claims when they are brought, but it will push for sanctions against these firms when there is evidence they have knowledge that responsibility lies elsewhere." In 2019, NWRA provided a strong amicus brief to the Third Circuit in Baptiste v. Bethlehem Landfill Co. supporting Waste Connections. The reason for the dismissal was memorialized in the Rule 41 stipulation and reported at 2021 WL 1232779 (E.D. Pa. March 30, 2021). [GN] WELLS FARGO: 9th Cir. Upholds Attorneys' Fees in Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's award of attorney's fees in the case, In re: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. FIRE & POLICE PENSION ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO; THE CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF SYSTEM, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. EDWARD W. COCHRAN, Objector-Appellant v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-15898 (9th Cir.). Objector-Appellant Edward Cochran appeals the district court's award of attorney's fees in a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of Wells Fargo against the company's management. The district court revised downwards from a 25% benchmark to grant attorney's fees of 22% ($52 million) after considering the results achieved, risk and burden endured, and similar cases, then, performed a lodestar cross-check for reasonableness. Cochran argues that the district court "erroneously anchored its fee award to the Circuit's 25% benchmark and the Co-Lead Counsel's 28.33% request." Instead, he says the court should have used a lower percentage as a benchmark, such as around 11% or 17.5%. The Ninth Circuit notes that the district court is required only to reach a reasonable percentage after "considering all the circumstances of the case." While it has repeatedly held the 25% benchmark "is of little assistance in megafund cases," such as this one, the Ninth Circuit has required a different benchmark in only one instance, citing In re Optical Disk Drive Prods. Antitrust Litig., 959 F.3d 922, 934 (9th Cir. 2020). When counsel "proposes a fee structure in a competitive bidding process, that bid," not a percentage benchmark, "becomes the starting point for determining a reasonable fee." But there were no fee structures proposed here. Cochran bases his 11% benchmark on a 2016 document in an unrelated case that purportedly showed how much the rejected counsel candidate charged ex ante in 2005 in yet another case. Because there was no competitive fee-based bidding process, Optical Disk Drive's benchmark requirement does not apply here and Cochran's 11% benchmark is inapt. Cochran proposes a 17.5% benchmark based on a study reflecting that the mean percentage of recovery in connection with settlements of this size is 17.9%. But the district court had already reasonably considered this study (and others) in analyzing the circumstances and found they "weighed in favor of" a slightly reduced award. The district court considered the circumstances -- including the results achieved, the risk and burden endured, and similar cases -- in reaching a reasonable percentage. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed fee awards totaling a far greater percentage of the recovery than the fees in the instant case, including fees of Circuit 28% and 33%. It finds no abuse of discretion. A full-text copy of the Court's April 16, 2021 Memorandum is available at https://tinyurl.com/3fhnp7ck from Leagle.com. WELLS FARGO: Stoff Suit Removed to S.D. California -------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Michael Stoff, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Does 1 through 10, Case No. 37-02020-00020808 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of California on April 22, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00793-BEN-KSC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit. Wells Fargo & Company -- https://www.wellsfargo.com/ -- is an American multinational financial services company with corporate headquarters in San Francisco, California, operational headquarters in Manhattan, and managerial offices throughout the United States and overseas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Brown, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW J. BROWN 501 W. Broadway, Ste. 1490 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: (619) 501-6550 Email: andrewb@thebrownlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Rebecca Snavely Saelao, Esq. SEVERSON & WERSON One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111-3715 Phone: (415) 398-3344 Fax: (415) 956-0439 Email: rss@severson.com WESCO DISTRIBUTION: Shadinger Files Suit in California Superior Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WESCO Distribution, Inc. The case is styled as Eric Shadinger, on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Wesco Distribution, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Does 1-100, Case No. 34-2021-00298583-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., April 12, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." WESCO -- https://www.wesco.com/ -- is an industry-leading supply chain solutions company providing electrical supplies, logistics expertise and systems capabilities around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Han, Esq. JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION 751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3069 Phone: (818) 230-7502 Fax: (818) 230-7259 Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com WESTROCK SERVICES: Savino Sues Over Unpaid OT, BIPA Non-Compliance ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, ANTHONY SAVINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WESTROCK SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-01913 (N.D. Ill., April 9, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in New Lenox, Illinois as an hourly-paid factory worker from approximately April 2016 to October 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant required him and other similarly situated hourly-paid factory workers to scan their fingerprints to clock in and out without obtaining their prior consent to the collection of their fingerprints. In addition, the Defendant did not compensate them for the time they spent performing work before their shifts that is an integral and indispensable to their job duties. As a result, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff adds. The Plaintiff brings this collective and class action complaint on behalf of himself and other similarly situated factory workers to recover the full amount of damages from the Defendant, liquidated damages, statutory penalties available by law, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems appropriate. Westrock is a leading paper and packaging company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. Nicholas Conlon, Esq. BROWN, LLC 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com WORKHORSE GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of May 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of Workhorse Group, Inc. from July 7, 2020 through February 23, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased Workhorse Group securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit Workhorse Group Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") launched the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, which was a competitive multiyear acquisition process to replace approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse Group was one of the companies aiming to secure the NGDV contract, worth approximately $6.3 billion. On February 23, 2021, the USPS issued a press release announcing that Oshkosh Defense had won the NGDV contract -- not Workhorse Group. On this news, Workhorse Group's stock price fell $14.88 per share, or 47% to close at $16.47 on February 23, 2021. The price continued to fall in after-hours trading and opened on February 23, 2021, at $14/07, a drop of over 50% from the previous open. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) the Company had concealed the fact that electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Workhorse Group's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action, you may remain an absent class member. If you purchased Workhorse Group securities, and/or would like to discuss your legal rights and options please visit https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/workhorsegroupinc-wkhs-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-376/apply/ or contact Matthew E. Guarnero toll free at (877) 779-1414 or MGuarnero@bernlieb.com Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors, the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List" thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive years. Contact Information: Matthew E. Guarnero Bernstein Liebhard LLP https://www.bernlieb.com (877) 779-1414 MGuarnero@bernlieb.com URL: https://www.bernlieb.com [GN] WORKHORSE GROUP: Kessler Topaz Reminds of May 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors of Workhorse Group Inc. (NASDAQ:WKHS) ("Workhorse") that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investor Deadline: Investors who purchased or acquired Workhorse securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail atinfo@ktmc.com; or click https://www.ktmc.com/workhorse-group-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=workhorse. Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3 billion. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants continued to indicate that Workhorse would secure the NGDV contract. However, on February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a press release entitled: U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle Fleet. The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense - not Workhorse - had won the lucrative NGDV contract. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Workhorse was merely hoping that USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its NGDV, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case; (2) Workhorse had concealed the fact that - as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle - electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (3) as a result, the defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. Workhorse investors may, no later than May 7, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com. CONTACT: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 (844) 887-9500 (toll free) info@ktmc.com [GN] WORKHORSE GROUP: Pomerantz Law Firm Reminds of May 7 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 6 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Workhorse Group Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-02207, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Workhorse securities between July 7, 2020 and February 23, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Workhorse securities during the Class Period, you have until May 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Workhorse is a technology company engaged in the development and manufacturing of electric delivery vehicles. In 2016, the United States Postal Service ("USPS") announced the USPS Next Generation Delivery Vehicle ("NGDV") project, a competitive multiyear acquisition process for replacing approximately 165,000 package delivery vehicles. Workhorse was one of the companies vying for the NGDV contract, which was thought to be worth approximately $6.3 billion. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company was merely hoping that the USPS was going to select an electric vehicle as its Next Generation Delivery Vehicle, and had no assurance or indication from USPS that this was the case; (ii) the Company had concealed the fact that, as revealed by the postmaster general in explaining the ultimate decision not to select an electric vehicle, electrifying the USPS's entire fleet would be impractical and astronomically expensive; and (iii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. On February 23, 2021, while the market was open, the USPS issued a press release entitled "U.S. Postal Service Awards Contract to Launch Multi-Billion-Dollar Modernization of Postal Delivery Vehicle Fleet." The press release announced that Oshkosh Defense, not Workhorse, had won the lucrative NGDV contract. On this news, securities of Workhorse fell $14.87 per share, or 47%, to close at $16.47 per share in the regular session on February 23, 2021. The price continued to drop in after-hours trading and opened on February 24, 2021 at a price of $14.07 per share, a fall of over 50% from the previous open, damaging investors. The New York Times published an article on February 24, 2021, entitled "Losing Bid for Postal Contract Proves Costly for Electric-Vehicle Maker." The subtitle read: "Workhorse, a small truck maker with big ambitions, was counting on the deal for a surge in revenue. Its shares lost $2 billion in value." The press release quoted the postmaster general, Louis DeJoy, who said the USPS's plan called for 10 percent of its new trucks to be electric. When asked by Representative Jackie Speier, a California Democrat, why that figure was not 90 percent, Mr. DeJoy pointed to cost, stating: "We don't have the three or four extra billion dollars in our plan right now that it would take to do it[.]" The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com CONTACT: Robert S. Willoughby Pomerantz LLP rswilloughby@pomlaw.com URL: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com[GN] YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL: NRO RICO Class Suit Removed to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled NRO BOSTON LLC, NRO EDGARTOWN LLC, JASON INDELICATO and ALICE INDELICATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YELLOWSTONE CAPITAL LLC, DAVID GLASS, YITZHAK STERN, and THE JOHN AND JANE DOE INVESTORS, Case No. 037005/2019, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Rockland, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on April 23, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 7:21-cv-03652 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1962 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a claim seeking to vacate a New York state judgment previously entered against the Plaintiffs, and a claim under the Massachusetts General Law. NRO Boston LLC is a women's clothing store in Boston, Massachusetts. NRO Edgartown LLC is a fashion store in Edgartown, Massachusetts. Yellowstone Capital LLC is a financing firm based in New Jersey. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Adam J. Stein, Esq. Christopher R. Murray, Esq. STEIN ADLER DABAH & ZELKOWITZ, LLP 1633 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 867-5620 E-mail: cmurray@steinadlerlaw.com ZOETIS INC: Reed Smith Attorney Discuses Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephen J. McConnell, Esq., of Reed Smith, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in Knapp v. Zoetis Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. 63783 (E.D. Va. March 31, 2021), the plaintiff alleged that administration of an equine antibiotic caused his horse, Boomer, to experience "persistent lameness" and permanent damage to the "musculature in his neck." Boomer was not okay. His condition was far from stable. The plaintiff claimed that the manufacturer knew of similar negative reactions yet failed to supply proper warnings. The plaintiff's complaint included causes of action for negligence, failure to warn, defective design and manufacture, and breaches of various express and implied warranties. The complaint did not specify under which law the negligence was brought, cited Virginia law for two of the warranty claims, and pointed to New Jersey for the rest of the causes of action. The claims under New Jersey law were styled as a class action. Boomer and his owner lived in Virginia, while the defendant manufacturer was a citizen of New Jersey. (Quick: Name a famous equestrian from New Jersey.) The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claims under New Jersey law. It also moved to strike the class action. The federal court, sitting in Virginia, applied Virginia choice of law rules. Virginia applies the lex loci delicti -- the law of the place of the wrong. In personal injury tort cases, the applicable law is typically where the plaintiff (or in this case, his four-legged companion) first became ill. Warranty claims can smell like both tort and contract claims, but either way, the state where the injury occurs supplies the operative substantive law. In Knapp, poor Boomer ingested the drug and suffered injuries in Virginia. In the race between Virginia law and New Jersey law, Virginia law is leading by several lengths as we round the last turn. The plaintiff cited a New Jersey case that considered a claim by a plaintiff who alleged an injury in Virginia caused by a drug manufactured by a New Jersey company. But that was a horse of a different color. The New Jersey court held that New Jersey law governed the claim for punitive damages. That ruling was based on New Jersey's "significant relationship" choice of law rule, which is different from Virginia law. Moreover, even that New Jersey case ended up applying Virginia law to the substantive claims arising from the injury in Virginia. Again, everything of importance in the Knapp case happened in Virginia, so Virginia's law applied, not the law of New Jersey, where the defendant had its principal place of business. Giddy up! What is especially interesting about the Knapp case is that the plaintiff's attempt to convert his individual dispute into a nationwide class action under a different state's law failed, with the action cut back to an individual one under the law of the plaintiff's state. Choice of law galloped straight into the issue of standing. The plaintiff argued that a class action under New Jersey law would be the "best way to achieve an efficient manner of uniform redress." Whoa! Efficiency was really a code word for ponying up big class action fees for plaintiff attorneys. That would be a lot of hay. But such specious efficiency cannot vault over fundamental rules of standing. The Knapp court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert any action under New Jersey law because the use of the drug and the injury did not happen in New Jersey. The plaintiff did not allege an injury in fact occurring under New Jersey law. Consequently, the plaintiff lacked standing to bring a case on behalf of either himself or others under New Jersey law. The plaintiff's lack of standing under New Jersey prompted the Knapp court to say Nay to the class action alleged under New Jersey law. As far as we are concerned, that is the main point of the Knapp case. That is not to say that the state court rulings are devoid of interest. The Knapp court considered the negligence, implied warranty, and express warranty claims under Virginia law. The court concluded that the plaintiff might possibly be able to make out a claim for breach of an express warranty. But the negligence and implied warranty claims flunked because the complaint did not identify any specific defect in the drug at issue. All the complaint did was say there was a defect. The plaintiff contended that he did not need to identify a specific defect That was not a whinnying -- sorry, winning -- argument. The Eastern District of Virginia has already rejected the argument that a plaintiff need not identify a product's defects at the pleading stage. In the end, the plaintiff was left only with a single express warranty claim under the law of his residence, Virginia. From the plaintiff lawyer's perspective, seeing a wide-scale class action cut down to such a small sliver must have seemed like a nightmare. At a minimum, the result must have produced a long face. [GN] [*] Accounting-Related Securities Class Actions Continue to Rise ---------------------------------------------------------------- Against the backdrop of a worldwide pandemic and a decline in overall securities class action filing activity, the number of securities class action filings involving accounting allegations increased in 2020 for the third consecutive year, according to a report released on April7 by Cornerstone Research. The report, Accounting Class Action Filings and Settlements—2020 Review and Analysis, found that accounting allegations continue to have a substantial impact on securities class actions. Accounting allegations were present in more than 30% of all federal securities class action filings, and accounting cases made up 84% of total settlement dollars in 2020. Plaintiffs filed 70 securities class action lawsuits involving accounting allegations in 2020, up from 67 the previous year and the second-highest number in the last 10 years. There were 38 accounting case settlements in 2020, more than the 34 settlements in the previous year but still lower than in the peak years of 2015 to 2017. The number of accounting case settlements represented almost 50% of all securities class action settlements in 2020. Total accounting case settlement dollars rose to $3.5 billion in 2020, more than triple the total of $932 million in 2019. This increase was driven by a small number of mega settlements (those valued at $100 million or higher). The median accounting case settlement value was $10.8 million, comparable to the median settlement value of $10.6 million in 2019. For defendant companies named in accounting case filings, the Disclosure Dollar Loss Index(R) (DDL Index(R)), a measure of market capitalization losses, reached its highest level in the last 10 years. Market capitalization losses for accounting case filings were 77% higher than the 2011–2019 annual average DDL for accounting cases. Author Commentary Elaine M. Harwood, Senior Vice President: "Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, accounting class action filings reached their highest level since 2011. More than one-third of accounting cases filed in 2020 included allegations of improper revenue recognition, nearly double the proportion in 2019." Frank T. Mascari, Principal: "The trend of accounting case filings against larger companies observed in 2019 continued in 2020. The 10 largest issuer defendants accounted for almost 70% of the market capitalization losses for accounting cases in 2020." Laura E. Simmons, Senior Advisor: "Accounting issues remain at the forefront of the largest securities class action settlements, and recent trends in case filings suggest that is unlikely to change in the near future." Highlights * Defendant firm size, filings: At $1.3 billion, the median market capitalization of issuer defendants in 2020 was almost 18% higher than the 2019 median market capitalization of $1.1 billion, and 56% greater than the 2011–2019 average. * Defendant firm size, settlements: The median market capitalization of $934.1 million in accounting case settlements was 41% higher than the average annual median for 2011–2019. * Dismissals: The first-year dismissal rate of accounting cases filed in 2020 was 3%, the lowest percentage of current-year dismissals over the last 10 years. * Restatements: There were 11 accounting case filings involving financial statement restatements in 2020, the lowest level in 10 years. In 2020, the proportion of settled accounting cases involving restatements was also the lowest over the last 10 years. * Internal control weaknesses: There were 25 accounting case filings containing an allegation, but no announcement, of internal control weaknesses, the highest level since 2015. Of the 19 settlements in 2020 that involved a company announcement of an internal control weakness, 42% also involved a restatement. * Industry: For the third year in a row, there were as many or more accounting case filings and accounting case settlements in the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector (including biotechnology, healthcare, and pharmaceutical companies) than any other industry sector. About Accounting Cases Cases are considered "accounting cases" if they involve allegations related to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) violations, violations of other reporting standards, auditing violations, or weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting. This year's report focuses on federal securities class action filings containing Rule 10b-5, Section 11, or Section 12(a) claims, previously referred to as "core" filings. About Cornerstone Research Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis for more than 30 years. The firm has over 700 staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, and Washington. See Cornerstone Research's website for more information about the firm's capabilities in economic and financial consulting and expert testimony. [GN] [*] Bailey's Travel Urges Agents to Join Insurance Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Juliet Dennis, writing for TravelWeekly, reports that Bailey's Travel is urging agents to get in touch with him in order to take a class action relating to business interruption insurance. Owner Chris Bailey had hoped to claim between £200,000 and £250,000 in lost earnings on his business interruption insurance following January's Supreme Court ruling in favour of small firms. The court ordered insurers to pay out business interruption insurance claims where companies were affected by Covid-19. Despite the new ruling, Bailey said his claim has once again been rejected based on the specific wording of his policy, which referenced a 'notifiable disease manifesting itself at the premises'. He said: "I have been told I have to prove that someone contracted Covid on my premises and got a positive test, then I can make a claim. I am saying 'at the premises' can mean in the vicinity of the shop, where Covid exists. "It is very frustrating. The insurers want to tie you down to the precise wording of the policy but the Supreme Court said there should be no reason to prove the existence of Covid-19." Bailey took out business interruption insurance with Axa through broker James Hallam. He is currently seeking legal advice but said a court action would ideally need "another 50 agents" with the same policy as his to go ahead. He said: "We are going to pursue this but I need more agents to join me to take a class action. I want as many as possible to contact me because it's a cause worth fighting. "It will be a battle and take time but I believe we will win. I suspect there could be hundreds of agents who have the same policy." Bailey said agencies like his were struggling to survive and "running out of cash" because they had to keep afloat for more than 12 months without any proper income as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. "It's a catastrophe of epic proportions. The reality is that we will be fighting for the next five years to build our businesses back to where they were [pre-Covid]," he said. [GN] [*] Employers Can't Stop Workers to Join Class Suit Under PRO Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Price, writing for Small Business Trends, reports that back in March, the US House of Representatives passed what's known as the PRO Act. While the legislation is gaining notoriety over its content on unions and employees' right to organize, it also aims to completely change the job marketplace for freelancers and independent contractors. However, the PRO Act faces a major hurdle, or two, in the US Senate. You can expect to hear more about the PRO Act in the coming days or weeks now. Amazon workers voted against unionizing. Now, it appears pro-union lobbyists will be upping the pressure on Democrats in the Senate to get the PRO Act to President Joe Biden for his signature. The only way that may happen is if the Senate votes to end the filibuster. And right now, that doesn't seem likely. Regardless, if you're an independent contractor, freelancer, or small business owner with employees, you'll want to closely follow this bill as it's debated in the coming weeks. It could have major implications for all. The PRO Act's Effect on Small Business, Independent Contractors and Freelancers Let's look at what's in the bill and what's been said about it so far, mostly in debate among the US House of Representatives. The House of Representatives passed the PRO (or Protecting the Right to Organize) Act March 9 by a 225-206 vote. On March 11 the PRO Act (HR842) was received in the Senate and referred to the committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). HR842 will be debated in committee before being presented to the Senate for vote. The PRO Act and Independent Contractors HR842, as it's written now, adopts California's ABC test for independent contractors. Here's the text for the ABC test: An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless— (A) The individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact; (B) The service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (C) The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. In other words, the PRO Act would change the 1099 classification of independent contractors. Many people currently working as freelancers or subcontractors are presently doing work or service "outside the usual course of business of the employer." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***