/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210617.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 17, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 115 Headlines 4 PILLARS: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ACADIA PHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline ACELRX PHARMA: Sneed Hits Share Drop from Misleading Drug Labels ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline AMARIN CORP: Kotecki Appeals Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissal AMARIN PHARMA: Health Welfare Plans Hit Anticompetitive Practices ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Schrode Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over NZ Mass Deportation BAYER AG: Judge Rejects $2BB Roundup Class Settlement Proposal BLOSSOM NATURE: Faces Roberts Suit Over Deceptive Drug Marketing CANADA: Contents of Cockpit Voice Recorder Released in TSB Suit CANADA: Indigenous Survivors Settlement Open for Comments CANADA: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Privacy Suit CANADA: Sept. 27 Kamloops Settlement Approval Hearing Set CANADA: Settles Residential Schools Day Scholars Class Action CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Appeals Securities Class Suit Dismissal CDI CORP: Settles ERISA Class Action for $1.8 Million CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Bleichmar Fonti Files Securities Class Action CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 6 Deadline CHEMOCENTRYX INC: SEPTA Sues Over Share Price Drop CHEVRON U.S.A.: Parties Agrees to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines CONAGRA FOODS: Court Reverses Wesson Oil Class Action Settlement COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Gets Court Approval COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Class Action Remains Stayed COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Unpaid Overtime Suit Underway DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline DUFRESNE SPENCER: Loebsack et al. Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid OT DUKE UNIVERSITY: Insurer Must Cover Two Antitrust Class Actions EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Iron Workers Fund Appeals Case Dismissal EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Stock Price Drop EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 18 Deadline EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Thornton Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Cert. in Pelletier Securities Suit ENTERPRISE LEASING: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Benson ERISA Suit EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms $380.5MM Class Action Settlement FAMOUS ITALIAN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, De Jesus Says FORD MOTOR: Judge to Decide on Ford F-150 V8 Engine Class Action GENERAL MILLS: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over 2.4L Ecotec Engines GLENCO CONTRACTING: Guzman et al. Seek Carpenters' Unpaid OT Wages GN NETCOM: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in Liability Suit GRUBHUB INC: Michaeli Bakery Files Class Action Over Delivery Fees GRUBHUB INC: New York City Eateries File Class Action Lawsuit HANDLEBAR INC: Dancers Slams Illegal Tip Pool, Seek Minimum Pay HAWAII: Inmates File Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreaks HEXO CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed in New York HEXO CORP: U.S. Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Synergy Hotels Sues Over Unfair Practices IKE & MIKE: Williamson Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ILLINOIS: Former State Lawmaker's Class Action Seeks Back Pay INSTAGRAM: Arent Fox Attorneys Discuss Copyright Class Action JD PRODUCE: Jian Seeks Overtime Pay, Missed Wage Statements JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Whipple Slams Carcinogen in Hair/Scalp Products KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Drivers File Labor Suit, Allege Retaliation LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Construction Defect Issues LIMETREE BAY: Faces Fourth Class Action Over Flaring Incident MANDARICH LAW: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Parker MARSH USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. METHOD PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Plastic Sues Over Unlawful Business Acts MUD WTR: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York NEC NETWORKS: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info, Trujillo Says NESTLE WATERS: Underpays Route Drivers, Mittler Suit Claims NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Parisi Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California NYC MEDICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Lawrence FLSA-NYLL Suit OPEN KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chumil Suit Claims PFIZER CANADA: Supreme Court Certifies Alesse Class Action PHILLY TILE: Ponce Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT, Last Pay PJ BERNSTEIN DELI: Galindo Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit PLUTOS SAMA: Wallis Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices PRETIUM RESOURCES: Ontario Court Tosses Securities Class Action PRIME FOOD: Fails to Pay Warehouse Workers' OT, Martinez Claims PROVENTION BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 20 Deadline PURECYCLE TECH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 12 Deadline PURECYCLE TECH: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of July 12 Deadline PURECYCLE TECH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline QC SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Suit Claims QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial REKOR SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims RLX TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $550 Million SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SKILLZ INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline TRAVELPARK LLC: Quezada Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind TREVENA INC: August 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Mulls Class Action Lawsuit UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit UNITED STATES: Appeals Dismissal Bid Denial in I.P. FLSA Suit UNITED STATES: Driever Appeals Denial of Bid to Reopen Case UNITED STATES: USEDU Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in Sweet Suit VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 22 Deadline [*] Class Action Attorneys Target Fish Oil Product Manufacturers [*] Courts Look Unfavorably on Recent Ransomware Class Actions [*] Quebec Launches Public Consultation on Class Action Reform [*] U.S. Class Action Spending Hits New High of $2.9 Billion ********* 4 PILLARS: Bennett Jones Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Ranjan Agarwal, Esq., Scott Bower, Esq., Gita Keshava, Esq., and Russell Kruger, Esq., of Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that Contractual terms that prevent a party from participating in a class action may be unenforceable for unconscionability and public policy when they preclude access to justice, the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently held in Pearce v. 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc., 2021 BCCA 198 [Pearce]. Background The defendants in Pearce were advisors to individuals who were nearing a state of insolvency and were seeking to restructure their debt. Several former customers alleged the defendants were operating illegally and sought a return of fees paid and damages. The former customers sought to have their claims certified as a class action proceeding. Some of these customers had entered into a standard form contract with the defendants that contained a class action waiver clause. The clause purported to prevent the customers from bringing class action proceedings. The defendants opposed class certification, and sought a stay of proceedings against some customers based on the class action waiver clause, among other grounds. The motion judge, in Pearce v 4 Pillars Consulting Group Inc., 2019 BCSC 1851, certified the customers' claims as a class action. In doing so, the Court concluded the class action waiver clause was unenforceable. The defendants appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal Decision A unanimous British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded the class action waiver clause was unenforceable under the framework in Uber Technologies Inc v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16 [Uber]. The Court also applied the principles pertaining to clauses contrary to public policy from Justice Brown's concurring reasons in Uber and determined the clause was unenforceable as well. The Court explained that unconscionability focuses on the vulnerability of and unfairness to the party seeking to void the contract while public policy focuses on the harm to society that would flow from upholding a particular contract. Unconscionability A contractual clause will be unenforceable for unconscionability when: (1) an inequality of bargaining power exists between the parties; and (2) that inequality led to an improvident bargain, or an unfair contract, judged when the contract was made. Applying these principles, the Court held that the class action waiver clause here was unconscionable and so invalid. Inequality of bargaining power is established "where one party is unable to protect their interests in the contracting process." That depends on the context, but financial, informational, cognitive and experiential asymmetries are all relevant. The inequality does not have to be so great that it nullifies the party's capacity to enter a contract or amount to duress or undue influence. A lesser standard is sufficient. Here, the Court noted the consumers were not sophisticated commercial parties, and that the contracts were standard forms not subject to negotiation. The consumers were on the verge of insolvency when they entered the agreements. The clause did not effectively communicate that by agreeing not to participate in a class action, they would be barred from what was likely to be the sole mechanism through which they could practically bring an economically viable claim against the defendants. Although the defendants reviewed the contract with their customers, the Court made it clear this practice is only effective to the extent that it operates to equalize the relevant imbalances in the bargaining power of the parties. Here, it did not. An improvident bargain occurs when, at the time the contract is made, the inequality of bargaining power and the surrounding circumstances lead to an undue disadvantage to the weaker party, or an undue advantage to the stronger party. Here, the Court reasoned that because of the low monetary value of the individual claims and the complex nature of the legal issues, non-class action proceedings were not an economically viable option. Thus, the practical effect of the clause was to prevent the consumers from suing the defendants under the agreement, thereby imposing an undue disadvantage. Public Policy The doctrine of public policy renders a contractual term unenforceable where an overriding public policy interest outweighs the public policy interest in upholding the principle of freedom of contract. The overriding public policy interest here was that the contractual term effectively precluded the ability of a party to seek the resolution of a dispute in accordance with law. Such a clause "undermines the administration of justice, the rule of law, democracy and commercial certainty." The Court concluded that the class action waiver was unenforceable as being contrary to public policy. The primary thrust of the Court's reasoning was that class action proceedings were the only feasible way of bringing claims because of their low monetary amount and the complexity of the legal issues involved. While the class action waiver clause did not expressly prevent the customers from each bringing their own non-class action claims, that would not be feasible. Further, requiring many individual claims rather than a single class action would lead to a waste of judicial resources and problems of duplication of fact‑finding and the potential for inconsistent results. Finally, without class actions, "wrongdoers could cause widespread but individually minimal harm to a large class of individuals without fearing litigation, because the cost for one plaintiff to bring the suit would exceed the likely recovery." Conclusion Pearce suggests courts will be more willing to find class action waiver clauses unconscionable or against public policy, and parties intending to rely on them should take proactive steps to ensure they will be enforceable. Such steps may include drafting the clause in a way that its practical implications are clear, and specifically explaining those implications to the other party before entering the contract. Even so, waiver clauses may still be unenforceable where a class action proceeding is the only practical way a plaintiff can bring an economically viable claim to enforce their rights. The use of public policy grounds to invalidate a class action waiver may have broader implications for commercial parties generally, as it does not necessarily depend on finding an inequality of bargaining power. It is often difficult to establish an inequality of bargaining power when the contract is between two sophisticated corporations. If a plaintiff can challenge a class action waiver on public policy grounds, that could open the door to class action waivers being struck down in more situations. [GN] ACADIA PHARMA: Portnoy Law Firm Reminds of June 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACAD) investors that acquired shares between June 15, 2020 - Apr. 4, 2021. Investors have until June 18, 2021 to seek an active role in this litigation. Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone 310-692-8883 or email, or click https://portnoylaw.com/acadia/ to join the case. The complaint alleges that Acadia misrepresented facts concerning their supplemental new drug application for NUPLAZID(R) (pimavanserin), which treats dementia-related psychosis. Specifically, on July 20, 2020, it was announced by Acadia that the FDA accepted the sNDA for filing, stating that its pivotal study for the drug showed a meaningful reduction of psychosis symptoms, as well as a nearly 3X reduction in the risk of relapse for patients continuing on pimavanserin vs. placebo. Thereafter, Acadia repeatedly stated the FDA had not identified any potential review issues, reiterating the efficacy of the drug. But the truth began to emerge on Mar. 8, 2021, when Acadia announced that on Mar. 3, 2021 they were informed by the FDA that it had identified deficiencies in the sNDA. Then, on Apr. 5, 2021, it was announced by Acadia that the FDA had rejected the sNDA, citing a lack of statistical significance in regard to some of the subgroups of dementia, as well as inadequate numbers of patients with some less common dementia subtypes. 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 18, 2021. Please visit our website to review more information and submit your transaction information. The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Admitted CA and NY Bar lesley@portnoylaw.com 310-692-8883 www.portnoylaw.com [GN] ACELRX PHARMA: Sneed Hits Share Drop from Misleading Drug Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Sneed Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Acelrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Vincent J. Angotti and Raffi Asadorian, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04353 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of acute pain. Its lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to severe acute pain. On February 11, 2021, AcelRx received a warning letter from the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion of the FDA relating to a banner advertisement and a tabletop display that made misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA with regards to its administration as a simple, one-step process where in fact there are numerous administration steps outlined in the product labeling, including a separate, distinct step to visually confirm tablet placement in the patient's sublingual space of the mouth. On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021. Sneed purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities and suffered damages. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and docketed under 21-cv-04353, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 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 AcelRx securities during the Class Period, you have until August 9, 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. AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30 mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute pain. On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings, such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments. 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) AcelRx had deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA; (ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021, the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an 'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display (PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt." On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%, to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 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] AMARIN CORP: Kotecki Appeals Consolidated Securities Suit Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------------- Co-Lead Plaintiffs DAN KOTECKI and CATHERINE LITTLE-HUNT filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601, in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 18, 2021, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative class action. On February 22, 2019, a purported investor in the Company's publicly traded securities filed a putative class action lawsuit against Amarin Corporation plc, the chief executive officer and chief scientific officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Debendra Sharma v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 2:19-cv-06601 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2019). On March 12, 2019, another purported investor filed a substantially similar lawsuit captioned Richard Borghesi v. Amarin Corporation plc, John F. Thero and Steven Ketchum, No. 3:19-cv-08423 (D.N.J. March 12, 2019). On May 14, 2019 the court consolidated the cases under the caption In re Amarin Corporation PLC Securities Litigation, No. 3:19-cv-06601 and appointed two other purported shareholders, Dan Kotecki and the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, or Amended Complaint, on July 22, 2019 that added as defendants the Company's current chief medical officer and the Company's former chief executive officer, who is a current director. The Amended Complaint alleged that from September 24, 2018 to November 9, 2018 the Company misled investors by releasing topline results for the REDUCE-IT study without disclosing data on biomarker increases in the placebo group as compared with baseline measurement. The Amended Complaint alleged that these data suggest that the mineral oil placebo used in the REDUCE-IT study may have interfered with statin absorption in the placebo group, which they alleged may have increased adverse outcomes in the placebo group. The Amended Complaint further alleged that these purported misrepresentations and omissions inflated the share price. The Movants are seeking a review of the Court's Order dismissing the consolidated putative class action. The appellate case is captioned as In re: Amarin Corp PLC Securities Litigation, Case No. 21-2071, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 4, 2021.[BN] Movants-Appellants DAN KOTECKI and CATHERINE LITTLE-HUNT, as Trustee of the Gaetano Cecchini Living Trust, are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. John A. Kehoe, Esq. David Stein, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP 505 14th Street, Suite 1110 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com - and - Alex J. Hartzband, Esq. Megan M. Remmel, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Plaintiff-Appellee DEBENDRA SHARMA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com Defendants-Appellees AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, JOHN THERO, STEVEN B. KETCHUM, CRAIG B. GRANOWITZ, and JOSEPH S. ZAKRZEWSKI are represented by: Jonathan Rotenberg, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN 575 Madison Avenue, 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 940-6405 E-mail: jonathan.rotenberg@kattenlaw.com AMARIN PHARMA: Health Welfare Plans Hit Anticompetitive Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN LOCAL 854 and UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION FOR RETIRED FIRE OFFICERS FAMILY PROTECTION PLAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMARIN PHARMA, INC., AMARIN PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, AMARIN CORPORATION PLC, BASF AMERICAS CORPORATION, BASF CORPORATION, BASF PHARMA (CALLANISH) LTD, BASF USA HOLDING LLC, CHEMPORT, INC., NISSHIN PHARMA, INC., NOVASEP LLC, NOVASEP, INC., GROUPE NOVASEP SAS, AND FINORGA SAS, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-12061 (D.N.J., June 2, 2021) arises from Defendants' illegal scheme to delay competition in the United States and its territories for Vascepa, a prescription medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat hyperglyceridemia in adults. In September and October of 2016, four drug companies filed applications with the FDA to launch generic versions of Vascepa: Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and related entities, later acquired by Hikma Pharmaceuticals Plc, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. (DRL), Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and related entities, and Apotex, Inc. The Plaintiffs seek overcharge damages arising from Defendants' unlawful scheme to prevent generic competition for Vascepa by hoarding the world's supply of the active pharmaceutical ingredient needed to make the drug. As a result of Amarin's alleged scheme, DRL's launch of generic Vascepa has been delayed since August 2020, Hikma's launch of generic Vascepa has been constrained by limited supply, and Plaintiffs and members of the class have been forced to pay anticompetitive prices for Vascepa and its generic equivalent, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs are health and welfare benefits plans headquartered and with a principal place of business in New York, New York. The Defendants are multinational pharmaceutical manufacturers.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com ltaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Brian Murray, Esq. Greg Linkh, Esq. Brian Brooks, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com lalbert@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com bbrooks@glancylaw.com - and - Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq. Adam J. Pessin, Esq. FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK R.P.C. 1 S. Broad St., 23rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 567-6565 E-mail: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com apessin@finekaplan.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Terence S. Ziegler, Esq. Ethan J. Barlieb, Esq. Lauren M. McGinley, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com tziegler@ktmc.com ebarlieb@ktmc.com lmcginley@ktmc.com - and - Michael E. Criden, Esq. Kevin B. Love, Esq. Lindsey C. Grossman, Esq. CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A. 7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515 South Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 357-9000 Facsimile: (305) 357-9050 E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com klove@cridenlove.com lgrossman@cridenlove.com ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Schrode Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona Beverages USA LLC. The case is styled as Andrew Schrode, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03159 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Arizona Beverages USA (stylized as AriZona) -- https://drinkarizona.com/ -- is an American producer of many flavors of iced tea, juice cocktails, and energy drinks based in Woodbury, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 260-7080 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 13 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm on June 9 disclosed that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit along with Labaton Sucharow LLP, on behalf of investors of Array Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:ARRY). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased ARRY stock or other securities between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021 or investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Array common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's October 2020 initial public offering, the Company's December 2020 secondary public offering, or the Company's March 2021 secondary public offering may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array The case alleges that Array and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that dating back to the first quarter of 2020, prices of certain commodities, such as steel, were in the process of more than doubling, and that Array was facing increasing freight costs. It is also alleged that the Offering Materials contained false and misleading statements because they omitted and otherwise failed to disclose that, prior to the Offerings, increases in commodity and freight costs had been negatively impacting Array's business and operations. Interested Array investors have until July 13, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Array Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 [GN] AUSTRALIA: Class Action Mulled Over NZ Mass Deportation ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Gregoire, Esq., of Sydney Criminal Lawyers, in an article for Mondaq, reports that a group of lawyers, activists and deportees in Christchurch has just announced its intention to launch a class action in the Australian Federal Court to challenge the Coalition government's mass deportation of New Zealander residents, along with those of other nationalities. Since then immigration minister Scott Morrison oversaw the tightening of migration laws in late 2014, the federal Coalition has cancelled the visas of at least 6,000 residents. The largest distinct cohort affected has been New Zealanders, with around 2,300 having been deported. This program has seen the "fortress Australia" government internationally condemned over a deportation system that often sees long-term residents turfed out over the commission of minor offences, as well as a growing proportion over posing a mere risk to "health, safety or good order". NZ prime minister Jacinta Ardern again criticised the deportation program. She claims it involves Australia deporting "Australian criminals", as, at times, Kiwis who have spent almost their entire lives in this country - meaning they've been raised here - have been sent to NZ. Following the 26 October class action announcement, those organising the case have been inundated with legal professionals and academics contacting from around the globe, asking how they can participate in and help support the case as awareness of the unjust program is spreading. The 501 class action "The class action will be for the people who have been detained or deported over section 501 since 2014 when the amendments were made," said Filipa Payne, cofounder of deportee support group Route 501. "And it will also be for people who have been detained under section 116." "The reason why section 116 deportations are now part of the spectrum is their pathway into detention is quite a precarious situation as far as the judicial system goes," she told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. While NZ citizens have been most affected by Morrison's deportation program, Payne stresses the class action will represent deportees and detainees of all nationalities affected by the 2014 changes, unless they opt out. This includes those sent to Nauru under these laws. The deportee rights advocate further explained that for the moment her team is launching an official website with the details relating to the Route 501 Advocacy and Support class action. And from there, the case will be lodged with the Federal Court of Australia in about three weeks' time. "We are seeking accountability for the breaches of human rights and the lack of dignity that takes place in detention centres," Payne outlined. "We are seeking the closure of Christmas Island, and we are countering the policy of indefinite detention." Unethical and rights-undermining Introduced by current PM Scott Morrison in September 2014, the Character and General Visa Cancellation Amendment was part of a series of legislative changes that the newly-minted Abbott government immigration minister made back then to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). The changes that have affected the deportation regime most prominently were those made to the character grounds test contained in section 501 of the Act. The test now sees noncitizens automatically deported for being sentenced to 12 months or more prison time. The law holds for any number of sentences taken together. It includes those served concurrently, or sentences involving drug rehabilitation or mental health programs. So, while the government maintains it's all about dealing with serious criminal offenders, the laws capture much more. Section 116 of the Act contains a long list of reasons for visa cancellation, which includes an individual's presence being "or may be, or would or might be, a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community". Payne advises that this section is increasingly coming into play. In terms of our NZ residents, when the laws took effect in December 2014, Kiwis weren't listed as one of the top nine nationalities in detention. But by December 2015, they were the second largest group. And by December 2016, New Zealanders slated for deportation were number one. The latest Home Affairs statistics reveal that in March this year, New Zealanders continued to be the largest cohort being detained in Australian onshore immigration facilities. Justice sought Key demands that the 501 class action will be prioritising are that the Morrison government and security firms are held accountable for the treatment of the "unlawful noncitizens" that they've been locking up in immigration centres, often long-term. They also want to see a ruling around the unlawfulness of indefinite detention. And another priority is to see the closure of the Christmas Island facility. Those on board so far understand that financial compensation is unrealistic, so what they're really seeking is justice. A lesser-known issue that Payne says will also form part of the likely multiple actions is the fact that Australian banks are closing the accounts of noncitizen detainees. This means that not only are they barred access to their finances in detention, but it's not possible to obtain these funds after arriving in a foreign country. "They can't get their money. Their own personal earnings are taken from them," Payne made clear. "The banks have started doing this. It's not just to New Zealanders, but it's also other people being deported to other countries." "I know one person who had over $70,000 in their bank account, which is now gone forever." An international disgrace Speaking at a press conference in Queenstown on June 7, Morrison stated that the laws don't simply target Kiwis but apply to all foreign residents. And one of the key reasons Australia has one of the most successful immigration policies on the planet is that it's clear about law-breaking. According to Payne, not only is this deportation regime destroying lives, but it's also harming Australia's international reputation. She's had lawyers from around the globe contact since announcing the action, and two NZ universities have offered their services in building the case. "It's becoming more draconian and abusive. We've got a government that instead of addressing ongoing human rights abuses is trying to deny rights further in the form of indefinite detention," she concluded. "How can it be legal to detain someone for the rest of their life?" [GN] BAYER AG: Judge Rejects $2BB Roundup Class Settlement Proposal -------------------------------------------------------------- Jalen M. Nelson, writing for Haute Lawyer, reports that Bayer announced it will review the future of Roundup and its other glyphosate-based weedkillers in the U.S. following a federal judge's rejection of a $2 billion plan to settle future claims alleging the herbicide causes cancer. The company also stated it will reassess its efforts to settle around 30,000 ongoing claims by Roundup users who allege they have become sick from the product. Bayer's class action proposal would would have provided compensation in return for placing limits on possible future lawsuits. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria described the plan as "clearly unreasonable." Bayer said its new proposal was "designed to help the company achieve a level of risk mitigation that is comparable to the previously proposed national class solution." The company has said that decades of studies show Roundup and glyphosate are safe for human use, however thousands of users have alleged it caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer. In each case that has gone to trial, juries returned verdicts and tens of millions of dollars in damages for plaintiffs. Bayer purchased Monsanto in 2018, and as a result of the acquisition they are dealing with two separate sets of legal risks related to Roundup. The company committed $9.6 billion in June 2020 to settle around 125,000 existing claims and lawsuits by Roundup users. The company has resolved all but 30,000 of those claims. Bayer said Chhabria's order "closes the door" on using a class action to settle those future claims. Instead, it outlined a new proposal. Bayer said it "will immediately engage with partners to discuss the future of glyphosate-based products in the U.S. residential market," which has been the primary source of claims that Roundup caused cancer. The company said it will continue to supply glyphosate products for agricultural users and will also seek approval from the Environmental Protection Agency to include a link on Roundup labels to inform consumers of studies about the product. The company also said it would continue to pursue appeals of the jury verdicts. Chhabria claimed the biggest threat to all of the Roundup litigation was a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that the cases were barred by the EPA's finding that Roundup is safe for humans. The rejected proposal would have halted all litigation linking Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma for four years and would have barred Roundup users from seeking punitive damages once the pause on litigation expired. In return, users could be eligible for free medical exams and up to $200,000 compensation if they were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. [GN] BLOSSOM NATURE: Faces Roberts Suit Over Deceptive Drug Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOSSOM NATURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-01024-WBS-JDP (E.D. Cal., June 9, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has been deceptively and unfairly advertising, marketing, and sale of a worthless, misbranded drug named "Full Spectrum(TM) St. John's Worth Extract" on its website www.blossom-nature.com as treatment for depression, anxiety and stress. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) sent a warning letter to the Defendant on February 18, 2021 explaining that the Product is misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. Section 352(f)(1). Purportedly, the Defendant's St. John's Wort drug is intended for treatment of one or more diseases that are not amenable to self-diagnosis or treatment without the supervision of a licensed practitioner, and also failed to bear adequate directions for its intended use. Thus, the Product is "not generally recognized as safe and effective for the intended use or treatment for depression, anxiety and stress, added the suit. The complaint also states that without intervention the Court, the Defendant will be unjustly enriched at the expenses of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated consumers who purchased the Product by willingly and knowingly accepting and retaining a substantial monetary benefit from them. The Plaintiff demands relief and judgment for herself and for other similarly situated consumers, that includes compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees and expenses, litigation costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Blossom Nature, LLC manufactures drug, specifically St. John's Worth Extract. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. Christopher Gold, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com chris@edelsberglaw.com CANADA: Contents of Cockpit Voice Recorder Released in TSB Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos P Martins, Esq., and Andrew MacDonald, Esq., of WeirFoulds LLP, report that in Canada (Transportation Safety Board) v Carroll-Byrne (2021 NSCA 34), the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's authorisation of the conditional release of the contents of the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) to the parties to a class action. The appeal court unanimously affirmed the motion judge's holding that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the statutory privilege attached to the CVR. Facts In its final approach to Halifax International Airport just after midnight on 29 March 2015, Air Canada Flight 624 severed power lines and struck snow-covered ground short of the runway. It hit a localiser antenna array -- causing the Airbus A320's landing gear to separate -- bounced twice more and skidded on its belly before coming to a rest. Approximately 24 of the 133 passengers, as well as both pilots and a flight attendant, were taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. A class action proceeding was commenced on behalf of the passengers against: -- Air Canada; -- the pilot and first officer of Flight 624; -- Airbus; -- the airport; -- NAV Canada, which operates Canada's civil air navigation system; and -- the Canadian government. The class action was certified on consent in December 2016. Meanwhile, the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada carried out an investigation into the accident. The TSB's investigation report was released in May 2017. Among its findings was that Air Canada's applicable standard operating procedure (SOP) and practice did not accord with its or Airbus's flight crew operating manuals. As a result, Flight 624's flight crew had not monitored the aircraft's altitude or distance from the runway after selecting the flight path angle and, therefore, had not noticed that the aircraft had descended below the minimum descent altitude too early in its final approach. Air Canada amended its SOP following the accident. It also sued Airbus. The TSB's report is publicly available but its findings are not binding and the opinions of TSB investigators are not admissible in other legal proceedings by virtue of Sections 7(4) and 33 of the Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act ('the act'). As part of its investigation, the TSB took possession and considered the contents of the CVR. Section 28(2) of the act prohibits the disclosure of the CVR or its contents except in accordance therewith. Section 28(6) of the act allows a court to order the "production and discovery" of the CVR if the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs the importance of the statutory privilege attached to the CVR. That provision also references certain procedural considerations that came into play in Carroll-Byrne - it reads as follows: Power of court or coroner (6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, where, in any proceedings before a court or coroner, a request for the production and discovery of an on-board recording is made, the court or coroner shall (a) cause notice of the request to be given to the Board, if the Board is not a party to the proceedings; (b) in camera, examine the on-board recording and give the Board a reasonable opportunity to make representations with respect thereto; and (c) if the court or coroner concludes in the circumstances of the case that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighs in importance the privilege attached to the on-board recording by virtue of this section, order the production and discovery of the on-board recording, subject to such restrictions or conditions as the court or coroner deems appropriate, and may require any person to give evidence that relates to the on-board recording. Airbus, along with the plaintiffs, the Halifax airport and NAV Canada, moved for the production and discovery of the CVR in the class action. The TSB and the Air Canada Pilots' Association were granted intervenor status and opposed the requested disclosure order, along with Air Canada. Appeal The motion judge ordered the conditional release of the CVR to the parties to the class action. The TSB appealed, with the support of the Air Canada Pilots' Association and Air Canada. On appeal, the TSB's primary arguments were that the court had erred by: -- failing to give it the opportunity to make in camera representations with respect to the CVR; and -- determining that the public interest in the proper administration of justice outweighed the importance of the privilege in the CVR. The Air Canada Pilots' Association argued that the disclosure of the CVR would compromise pilot privacy interests and public safety by discouraging candour in flight officer communications. Decision 'In camera' versus 'ex parte' The TSB argued that Section 28(6)(b) of the act, in its inclusion of the words "in camera", entitled it to make ex parte representations to the judge prior to any decision to release the contents of the CVR. That is, the TSB asserted that the motion judge should have allowed it to make submissions not only in the absence of the public (in camera), but also in the absence of any other adverse parties (ex parte). In detailed reasons, the Court of Appeal held that the TSB's interpretation was incorrect. In particular, the court held that the fact that Section 28(6)(b) of the act uses the words "in camera" and not "ex parte" presented a considerable challenge to the TSB's argument. As noted by the court, there is a clear distinction between in camera and ex parte and it can be assumed that Parliament will use ex parte when that is what it means - as it has in Section 19(3) of the act and in various other federal legislation. Further, the court held that on a plain reading of Section 28(6) of the act, it: authorizes the Court -- not the parties -- to listen to the cockpit recorder in camera. The Board -- which is not a party in the ordinary sense -- is then given an opportunity to make representations with respect to the recording -- something non-parties ordinarily cannot. While the court did not make a clear finding on this issue, there is good reason to interpret the words "in camera" in Section 28(6)(b) of the act as applying only to the court's examination of the CVR and not to any representations that the TSB is allowed to make in respect thereof. As Airbus had argued, to the extent that there is any ambiguity in the English version of the provision, the French version appears to support this conclusion in providing that a court to which a request for the production of a CVR is made must "examine celui-ci a huis clos et donne a la Regie la possibilite de presenter des observations a ce sujet". This phrasing more clearly states that only the examination of the CVR is to be done in camera ('a huis clos'). Public interest favoured conditional release of CVR The TSB faulted the motion judge for following and applying the analysis of a 2009 Ontario decision rendered by Justice Strathy in Societe Air France v Greater Toronto Airports Authority (2009 CanLII 69321), which had canvassed many of the arguments raised in Carroll-Byrne in some detail. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that the motion judge had not erred in relying on the Air France articulation of the applicable test, which had rejected the inclusion of a "possibility of a miscarriage of justice" threshold as unwarranted and unsupported by the language of Section 28(6) of the act. That decision was unanimously upheld on appeal (and Strathy was subsequently elevated to the Ontario Court of Appeal and appointed Chief Justice of Ontario). The appeal court also found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the facts before him, which were entitled to deference. In particular, the motion judge had held that: -- the CVR was both reliable and material to a central focus of the claim (ie, the flight officers' perceptions, observations, considerations and decision-making in Flight 624's final approach); -- the flight crew's discovery evidence revealed gaps in their ability to provide facts about their conduct at material times in the flight, which could be filled by production of the CVR; -- disclosure of the CVR under the stringent conditions proposed would not unduly compromise flight officer privacy, especially given that the most important part of the recording occurred when the aircraft was below 10,000 feet when "sterile cockpit rules are in effect", meaning that only operational issues are to be discussed; and -- disclosure of the CVR would not unduly compromise safety by having a 'chilling effect' on pilot communication or witness cooperation with investigators, having weighed competing evidence from the TSB and the experience of the US National Transportation Safety Board, where no such effect had been found. Comment The act attaches privilege to cockpit voice recorders and their contents to promote safety and protect the privacy interests of flight crews. However, CVRs contain data that is usually of critical importance to understanding the causes of an aviation accident. Like the TSB, a court's function is to uncover the truth and, in recognition of this fact, the act allows for the production of CVRs in the civil litigation discovery process in appropriate circumstances. For further information on this topic please contact Carlos P Martins or Andrew MacDonald at WeirFoulds LLP by telephone (+1 416 365 1110) or email (cmartins@weirfoulds.com or amacdonald@weirfoulds.com). The WeirFoulds LLP website can be accessed at www.weirfoulds.com. [GN] CANADA: Indigenous Survivors Settlement Open for Comments --------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Canada has reached a proposed settlement with a group of indigenous survivors of the now-defunct residential schools for the abuse they suffered, a federal minister said on June 9, ending a 14-year fight for justice. The settlement comes as the government is scrambling to deal with a national outcry after the remains of 215 indigenous children were discovered at a former residential school in Kamloops, British Columbia. The government has been under pressure to stop legally opposing indigenous people's requests for compensationand acknowledgement in court following the discovery. Under the latest agreement, the government will provide C$10,000 ($8,259.00) to each survivor involved in the class action lawsuit and create a C$50 million indigenous-led nonprofit to support wellbeing and cultural learning. The settlement does not include an explicit admission of wrongdoing by the government. Crown-Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said the plaintiffs had hoped for an official apology and "while this is not part of a settlement agreement, we will be listening to their concerns, as we work together on this request." The estimated 12,000 to 20,000 survivors in the lawsuit attended residential schools during the day and went home at night. Because of this, they were not included in a previous settlement for residential school survivors. Between 1831 and 1996, Canada's residential school system forcibly separated about 150,000 indigenous children from their parents, bringing them to institutions with the stated purpose of assimilation. They were malnourished, beaten and sexually abused in what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called cultural genocide in its landmark 2015 report. The proposal is open for comments from plaintiffs until August 2021, and will be presented along with the comments to the court in September for approval. Bennett told reporters at a June 9 news conference that the government will continue to work with survivors and their families and others to resolve remaining childhood claims. "Together we will move forward on the path to reconciliation," she said. CANADA IS A "REPEAT OFFENDER" Several plaintiffs spoke at the conference, describing the pain the residential schools and the years-long lawsuit brought them. "This has been a really long process, 14 years, returning to court, regurgitating trauma," Charlotte Gilbert, a representative for the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit, said. A separate class action, still ongoing, deals with residential schools' cultural damage and involves 105 indigenous bands. "No amount of compensation can change the legacy of residential schools," Diena Jules, a survivor of the schools, said. "Nothing can restore us to being whole." The government remains embroiled in several ongoing lawsuits involving indigenous people in Canada. A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal case involving discrimination through the systemic under-funding of child and family services against indigenous children -- resulting in a disproportionate number of indigenous children in foster care -- has a hearing this week. The Canadian government has admitted its child and family services funding system "was broken and needed immediate and substantial reform." But in its most recent filings it argued the tribunal was the wrong venue for this dispute and that individual compensation was not appropriate in this instance. "It's a really dangerous argument," said Cindy Blackstock, a member of the Gitxsan nation and executive director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, which brought the legal action. Canada is "a repeat offender" when it comes to abrogating the rights of indigenous children, she said. "It needs a heavy hand for deterrence." [GN] CANADA: McCarthy Tetrault Attorneys Discuss Ruling in Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Isabelle Vendette, Esq., Morgane Palau, Esq., and Elisabeth Sohier-Poirier, Esq. of McCarthy Tetrault, reported that in a judgment rendered on March 26, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court dismissed the class action brought by Danny Lamoureux against the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada ("IIROC" or the "Organization") in which he claimed damages for the Organization's loss of personal information. The Quebec Superior Court thus rendered a noteworthy decision on the merits of a privacy class action, concluding that Mr. Lamoureux did not demonstrate sufficiently serious non-pecuniary damages to entitle him to compensation. The Superior Court, presided by the Honourable Florence Lucas, also dismissed the claim for punitive damages, as she found that, following the incident, IIROC had implemented the appropriate response measures and had notified the concerned individuals without delay. Background Mr. Lamoureux's class action was based on an incident in February 2013, during which an IIROC inspector misplaced his unencrypted laptop on a train. The device, which was merely password-protected, contained personal information belonging to thousands of Canadian investors. It was never recovered. Following this incident, a disgruntled investor, Paul Sofio, filed an initial application for authorization to institute a class action against IIROC.[1] Mr. Sofio accused the Organization of being negligent in its loss of personal information, additionally pointing to the delay between the incident and a notice being sent to the affected individuals. According to Mr. Sofio, the incident caused him stress, for which non-pecuniary damages of $1,000 per member were being claimed. The Superior Court, presided by the Honourable Andre Prevost, rejected the application for authorization, concluding that Mr. Sofio had not established a prima facie case and that consequently the criteria to authorize a Quebec class action had not been met.[2] Indeed, according to the Superior Court, there was a prima facie absence of an actual compensable harm. Despite the Court of Appeal's refusal to review this judgment[3], another investor, Mr. Danny Lamoureux, nevertheless took a chance a few days later by filing a new application for authorization to institute a class action against the Organization, based on the same facts. Plaintiff Lamoureux claimed for the stress and anxiety he experienced, the inconveniences endured and the consequences resulting from unlawful use of his identity. The class action was authorized by the Superior Court in 2017. Highlights of the Superior Court judgment on the merits Interestingly, IIROC admits that it was at fault regarding the loss of the laptop and for not ensuring the utmost protection of members' personal information, despite its internal policies that required the encryption of laptops. Despite this admission of fault, the Superior Court ruled that the class action brought by Mr. Lamoureux must be dismissed, given that: -- Regarding damages claimed, the worry and inconvenience suffered by the members as a result of the loss of their personal information is not a compensable harm. Indeed, said worry and inconvenience are akin to the normal inconvenience that any person living in society is required to accept. The judgment additionally mentions that: -- The Court followed the Supreme Court's position regarding non-pecuniary damages[4], namely that they must be serious and long-lasting, and must not amount to ordinary, minor and transient inconveniences, anxieties or fears that any person living in society must accept on a regular basis. -- The Court concludes that the evidence provided very little detail, concrete facts or significant demonstrations of the members' psychological state, despite the testimonies of certain class members. According to the Court, the general negative feelings experienced by members did not surpass the threshold of normal inconvenience. -- The Court also finds that the steps members had to take, including increased monitoring of their financial accounts, were nothing more than the normal protection of their assets which every reasonable person must do in the 21st The inconvenience and time spent on these protective steps, such as calls and delays regarding the fraud alert and identity verification, cannot be compensated. In its analysis, the Court takes into account that IIROC offered for free all the necessary surveillance measures provided by Equifax and TransUnion. -- Regarding causation, there was no evidence of unlawful use of the lost information. The Court concludes that although the laptop was not ultimately located, the evidence does not establish that the individual who found it used the personal information it contained for unlawful purposes. Additionally, IIROC's expert explained that there was no indication that the unlawful use of personal information experienced by certain members was related to the incident at hand. According to the expert, if the laptop had fallen into the wrong hands, there would have been more instances of fraud amongst the affected investors and the frauds would have been more similar from one instance to the other. The Court found that the evidence failed to demonstrate causation between the loss of the laptop and the alleged unlawful use. -- IIROC was quick to react by implementing appropriate measures to address the incident and to notify the investors. As such, the request for punitive damages is dismissed. The Court found that the approximate two-month delay from the incident and notification to the concerned individuals was reasonable. The Court also accepted the non-contradicted testimony of IIROC's expert witness who found that IIROC's response had been consistent with best practices. In this regard, the evidence demonstrated that IIROC: * had launched an internal investigation and hired a consulting firm as independent computer security experts to identify the information stored on the computer and assist the Organization in managing the risks and its responsibility regarding the loss of personal information; * disclosed the incident to the police, the Quebec Commission d'accès a l'information and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada; * met with representatives of the affected brokerage firms to explain the situation and the measures it had implemented; offered free protective measures to the investors and brokerage firms and set-up call centers; * issued a press release, announcing the accidental loss of the laptop and the investigations underway; and * sent a letter to investors informing them of the incident affecting their personal information and advising them of the measures it had implemented and the services available to them. It is noteworthy that a month after this decision, in Levy v. Nissan Canada inc.[5], the Court of Appeal authorized a claim for punitive damages in a data breach class action. According to the Court of Appeal, the allegations of inadequate security measures and the one-month delay between the cybersecurity incident and notification to the affected individuals justified that the claim for punitive damages be authorized. The Court also considered the fact that the defendant was aware of the identity theft risk during this time period where members had not yet been notified of the incident. Conclusion The Lamoureux decision is noteworthy for many reasons. The decision emphasizes that in class action and privacy cases, as with any civil liability action, the harm must be serious enough to give rise to compensation. It confirms that the prejudice resulting from the mere occurrence of a cybersecurity incident is not sufficient for compensation, a finding that has also been rendered at the authorization stage in Li v. Equifax inc.[6], and Bourbonnière v. Yahoo! Inc.[7]. The judgment also illustrates the measures that can be implemented by businesses dealing with the loss or theft of personal information. The Superior Court acknowledges that a diligent corporate response that complies with industry standards can prevent potential claims for punitive damages. The story, however, does not seem to end here since the judgment has recently been appealed[8]. The outcome of the case thus remains to be seen. [GN] CANADA: Sept. 27 Kamloops Settlement Approval Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Wright, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that Diena Jules was just seven years old when she was forced to attend the Kamloops Residential School, but she was considered one of the lucky ones because she got to go home every night. She doesn't remember feeling so lucky. In fact, she calls the period the "dark ages" of her life. Jules attended the school as a "day scholar" for her first five years as a student, and another year as a resident. During that time, she was physically and verbally abused by priests, by the Catholic brothers and nuns who ran the school and by other students, jealous that she got to keep her hair long and wear her own clothes. She still recalls how they called her traditional spirituality "devil worship" and how they systematically tried to forcibly take away her language and her culture. "They called me a pagan and 'dumb Indian' and told me that I needed to become more white," Jules said. "I became disconnected with my family and community. I lost language, my cultural pride and my own identity." Jules is among several representatives in a class-action lawsuit against the federal government involving hundreds of First Nations people left out of residential-school compensation. The lawsuit, which was certified in 2015, was brought by Indigenous students known as day scholars, who attended the notorious Indian residential institutions but returned to their homes at night. On Wednesday, Jules and other class action representatives took part in a joint announcement with Ottawa declaring the parties had signed a proposed settlement agreement. It would see survivors receive compensation of $10,000 each -- an amount that would go to the estates and descendants of those who did not live long enough to see this settlement come to fruition. Ottawa is also pledging to invest $50 million into a Day Scholars Revitalization Fund aimed at rebuilding language, culture and community among the First Nations whose children were forced by Canadian authorities to attend the schools. Day scholars were excluded from the 2006 Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement, which compensated students $10,000 for the first year in a residential school, followed by $3,000 a year thereafter. All students who were physically or sexually abused regardless of status at the schools were entitled to compensation under a separate legal agreement. But the day scholars were not compensated for the "common experience" of attending the schools, as resident students were. "They were not given a safe place to learn and grow. Instead, they were stripped of their culture, language and traditional knowledge," said Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett. "While today's announcement has come too late for many survivors, the settlement will ensure that their estates and their descendants will be able to access compensation on their behalf." The proposed settlement must still be approved by the Federal Court to ensure it is fair and equitable for the parties. That hearing will take place Sept. 27. Charlotte Gilbert, another day scholar survivor, says the settlement agreement was reached after a 14-year legal battle that has simply "worn down" the remaining day scholar survivors. "This has been a real long, long process. Fourteen years. It's not been easy. Every time we went to court, it seems like living, regurgitating the same trauma that I endured as a child," she said. The survivors were recently presented with two options by their lawyers: go back to court or accept the settlement offer on the table from Ottawa. Given that a number of day scholar survivors have passed away in the intervening years since work on the lawsuit began, the decision was made to settle, Gilbert said. "Those federal lawyers, boy, they really try and rip you right up hard. And we had to be strong and stand up to them, and we did a good job," she said. The class action sought damages for three separate streams of those harmed by the residential institutions: former day students, their descendants and bands impacted by members who attended residential schools as day students. In order to speed up compensation to aging survivors and their descendants, the parties have agreed to separate the band class claims. An official apology to the day scholar survivors, their families and their communities, which has also been long called for, is still being worked on, Bennett said. [GN] CANADA: Settles Residential Schools Day Scholars Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The Representative Plaintiffs in the class action of Gottfriedson v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada are pleased to announce that they have signed a settlement agreement with Canada on behalf of Day Scholars and their children. This settlement is a long-awaited step towards justice for those who attended residential schools as Day Scholars and their children; it means that, finally, no survivor of a residential school will be left behind. Day Scholars are students who attended a federally owned and operated residential school during the day but did not sleep there. Day Scholars suffered the same destruction of language and culture as other students at residential schools, but were unjustly excluded from the 2006 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. After years of denial by the Canadian government, this settlement means that the losses suffered by Day Scholars and their children are finally being acknowledged. This settlement includes $10,000 for each eligible Day Scholar and provides $50 million for a Day Scholars Revitalization Fund to support healing and linguistic and cultural reclamation for Day Scholars and their children. All Day Scholars who were alive as of May 30, 2005, are included in the settlement. In cases where a Day Scholar has died since May 30, 2005, their families or estates are able to apply on their behalf. Further details can be found on the www.justicefordayscholars.com website. Before compensation can begin, the Federal Court must first determine if this settlement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of Class Members. A settlement approval hearing is scheduled to begin on September 7, 2021. This proposed settlement does not affect the claims of the Band Class regarding the collective losses suffered by Indigenous communities as a result of the destruction of language and culture caused by residential schools - those claims will continue on to trial in the latter half of 2022. Quotes: Diena Jules, Day Scholar and Survivor Class Representative Plaintiff, Tk'emlúps te Secwepemc: "I suffered a lot as a Day Scholar at Kamloops Indian Residential School. I was taught to feel that I did not belong with Secwepemc people practicing my culture and traditions, and became disconnected from my family and community. I lost my language, my cultural pride, and my own identity. I am proud that we stood up for ourselves and for our people, and that now, after many years, our experiences are being recognized and compensated." Charlotte Gilbert, Day Scholar and Survivor Class Representative Plaintiff, Tk'emlúps te Secwepemc: "To me, this settlement means Canada is finally recognizing that Day Scholars also suffered at residential schools. We are finally glad to see this recognition 14 years after the residential school settlement." Rita Poulsen, Daughter of a Day Scholar, and Descendant Class Representative Plaintiff, shishalh Nation: "No one lawsuit can change what happened to my father, or to us as his children. It cannot replace what we have lost. But my hope is that this settlement announced today can help put us on a good path towards healing and towards revitalizing our languages and cultures so that my children and grand-children will speak Sháshíshálhem and be proud upholders of our culture." For more information on the Day Scholars settlement agreement, please visit www.justicefordayscholars.com. Contact Data: Jessie Sitnick Argyle 416-859-8250 jsitnick@argylepr.com [GN] CARDONE CAPITAL: Pino Appeals Securities Class Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Luis Pino filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled LUIS PINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC, GRANT CARDONE, CARDONE EQUITY FUND V, LLC, and CARDONE EQUITY FUND VI, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-08499-JFW-KS, in the U.S. District Court for Central California, Los Angeles. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 13, 2021, Judge John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, entered final judgment in the case, granting the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, and entering judgment in favor of the Defendants against the Plaintiff on all of his claims. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in the action was dismissed without leave to amend, and the action was dismissed with prejudice in its entirety. The complaint alleges that the Defendants are responsible for false and misleading statements and for omitting material facts in connection with Cardone Capital, LLC's public offerings of interests in Fund V and Fund VI. The Defendants targeted what they called the "everyday investor," soliciting investors to purchase interests in Fund V and Fund VI through social media. These statements are considered "test the waters" communications, which are considered offers of securities and are subject to the anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Order entered by Judge Walter. The appellate case is captioned as Luis Pino v. Cardone Capital, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-55564, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 2, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Luis Pino Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 9, 2021; -- Appellant Luis Pino opening brief is due on July 27, 2021; -- Appellees Grant Cardone, Cardone Capital, LLC, Cardone Equity Fund V, LLC and Cardone Equity Fund VI, LLC answering brief is due on August 26, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LUIS PINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com - and - Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4405 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com Defendants-Appellees CARDONE CAPITAL, LLC, GRANT CARDONE, CARDONE EQUITY FUND V, LLC, and CARDONE EQUITY FUND VI, LLC are represented by: Joseph Nicholas Akrotirianakis, Esq. KING AND SPALDING LLP 633 W. 5th Street, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4313 E-mail: jakro@kslaw.com CDI CORP: Settles ERISA Class Action for $1.8 Million ----------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a Philadelphia-based engineering company has agreed to pay $1.8 million to end a proposed class action claiming it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by allowing expensive, poor-performing investment options in employees' 401(k) plan. On June 7, plaintiffs Adam Crawford, Lucia Depretto and Megan Bennett urged U.S. District Judge Kennedy to greenlight their proposed settlement with CDI Corp. and certify the class, which spans a six-year period beginning in July 2014. [GN] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Bleichmar Fonti Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") on June 9 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit for violations of the federal securities laws against ChemoCentryx, Inc.(NASDAQ:CCXI) ("ChemoCentryx" or the "Company") and the Company's Chief Executive Officer (collectively, "Defendants"). BFA filed this action on behalf of its client, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case is captioned Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-04357 (N.D. Cal.) and is brought on behalf of investors in ChemoCentryx's common stock between November 26, 2019 and May 6, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), which expands the class period that was asserted in the previously filed securities class action pending against ChemoCentryx captioned Homyk v. ChemoCentryx, Inc., No. 4:21-cv-03343 (N.D. Cal.). The complaint in this case is substantially similar to the complaint filed in Homyk, which is the first-filed securities class action in this matter. Pursuant to the notice published on May 5, 2021 in connection with the filing of Homyk pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), investors wishing to serve as Lead Plaintiff must file a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff by no later than July 6, 2021. The filing of this complaint does not alter that deadline. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and misleading statements about the design and results of the company's Phase III clinical trial, known as ADVOCATE, for its leading drug candidate avacopan, a treatment for the serious and often fatal autoimmune disease known as ANCA vasculitis. In July 2020, ChemoCentryx submitted a New Drug Application with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") relying largely on the ADVOCATE trial results. During the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted ADVOCATE's "excellent trial design," the "superlative" efficacy results, and "favorable safety results." These statements were materially false and misleading. In truth, the ADVOCATE trial design was fundamentally flawed, which raised questions about the interpretability of the trial results. On May 4, 2021, the FDA released a "Briefing Document" regarding the ADVOCATE trial. In the Briefing Document, the FDA stated, "[c]omplexities of the study design … raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management" of ANCA vasculitis. The FDA also questioned the safety results of the ADVOCATE trial, stating "[g]iven the small safety database, conclusions are limited," but noted that even in the limited data, it observed serious concerns including "imbalances in hepatoxicity, liver enzyme elevations, and angioedema." Then, on May 6, 2021, ChemoCentryx announced that an Advisory Committee of independent experts that the FDA convened to offer their opinions on the ADVOCATE trial was evenly divided as to whether the efficacy data from ADVOCATE supported approval of avacopan. Many members of the Advisory Committee expressed concerns about the robustness of the trial and the insufficient amount of safety data. Some members of the Advisory Committee called on ChemoCentryx to run another Phase III trial. These disclosures caused the value of ChemoCentryx stock to decline dramatically, resulting in significant harm to investors. BFA issues this notice in accordance with the PSLRA and Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 23-1(a). BFA is a law firm based in New York City with additional offices in Oakland, California; Toronto, Canada; and White Plains, New York. The Firm focuses on securities class actions and other investment-related matters. BFA currently serves as lead counsel in multiple securities class actions and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. For more information about BFA, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com/. Contact: Javier Bleichmar, Esq., Peter E. Borkon, Esq. 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 (212) 789-1340 info@bfalaw.com [GN] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Scott+Scott Reminds of July 6 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against ChemoCentryx, Inc. ("ChemoCentryx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CCXI) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Joseph Pettigrew for additional information at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. ChemoCentryx is a biopharmaceutical company. ChemoCentryx's lead drug candidate is avacopan, which the Company describes as "a first-in-class, orally-administered small molecule that employs a novel, highly targeted mode of action in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis and other complement-driven autoimmune and inflammatory diseases." On July 9, 2020, ChemoCentryx announced that it had filed its New Drug Application ("NDA") for avacopan, and on September 17, 2020, the Company announced that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") had accepted the NDA for review. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the study design of the Phase III trial for avacopan (ADVOCATE) presented issues about the interpretability of the trial data to define a clinically meaningful benefit and its role in the management of ANCA-associated vasculitis; (ii) the data from the ADVOCATE trial raised serious safety concerns for avacopan; (iii) these issues presented a substantial concern regarding the viability of the avacopan NDA; and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Despite the Company's repeated assurances throughout the Class Period that avacopan was meeting efficacy and safety targets throughout trial, on May 4, 2021, the FDA published a Briefing Document concerning the NDA for avacopan. In addition to raising safety concerns, the FDA stated that "[c]omplexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of [ANCA-associated vasculitis]," and that "[a]lthough primary efficacy comparisons were statistically significant, the review team has identified several areas of concern, raising uncertainties about the interpretability of these data and the clinical meaningfulness of these results." On this news, the price of ChemoCentryx stock fell $22.19, or 45.5%, to close at $26.63 per share on May 4, 2021, down from its previous close of $48.82 per share. What You Can Do If you purchased ChemoCentryx securities between November 26, 2019 and May 3, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joseph Pettigrew at (844) 818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 6, 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 Joseph Pettigrew Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP (844) 818-6982 jpettigrew@scott-scott.com [GN] CHEMOCENTRYX INC: SEPTA Sues Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chemocentryx, Inc. and Thomas J. Schall, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-04357 (N.D. Cal., June 8, 2021), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ChemoCentryx is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of new medications targeting inflammatory disorders, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. ChemoCentryx's lead drug candidate is "avacopan," an orally-administered treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis. On May 4, 2021, the FDA published a briefing document concerning the avacopan new drug application and the advocate trial results. The review team has raised serious safety concerns with avacopan. On this news, the price of ChemoCentryx common stock fell more than 45%, from $48.82 per share on May 3, 2021 to $26.63 per share on May 4, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. Members of the Advisory Committee further raised concerns about the safety data and had questions on whether the trial was statistically robust enough. On this news, the price of ChemoCentryx common stock fell approximately 62%, from $27.49 per share on May 6, 2021 to $10.46 per share on May 7, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority is an institutional investor that manages more than $1.4 billion in assets on behalf of approximately 14,000 beneficiaries. It purchased ChemoCentryx common stock and has been damaged thereby. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Peter E. Borkon, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 Email: pborkon@bfalaw.com CHEVRON U.S.A.: Parties Agrees to Extend Class Cert. Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAWN CLAYBORNE, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved employees; DAVID POOL, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., NEWTRON LLC, PERFORMANCE MECHANICAL, INC., SPECIALTY WELDING AND TURNAROUNDS, LLC, and DOES 1-100, Inclusive, Case No. 4:19-cv-07624-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Parties stipulated and agreed that class certification deadlines shall be extended as follows: Deadline Original Date Current Date Proposed Date Expert April 23, 2021 Sept. 10, 2021 Dec. 10, 2021 Disclosures Expert May 14, 2021 Oct. 8, 2021 Jan. 21, 2022 Rebuttals Expert May 28, 2021 Oct. 22, 2021 Feb. 4, 2022 Discovery Plaintiffs' June 25, 2021 Nov. 29, 2021 Mar. 4, 2022 Motion Defendants' July 23, 2021 Jan. 14, 2022 Apr. 1, 2022 Opposition Plaintiffs' Aug. 13, 2021 Feb. 11, 2022 Apr. 22, 2022 Reply Hearing Sept. 3, 2021 Mar. 4, 2022 May 13, 2022 A copy of the Parties' motion dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3pNypn2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Moira Heiges-Goepfert, Esq. Jared W. Goldman, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com mhg@outtengolden.com jgoldman@outtengolden.com - and - Steven Elster, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER 785/E2 Oak Grove Road, No. 201 Concord, CA 94518 Telephone: (925) 324-2159 E-mail: steve.elster.law@gmail.com The Attorneys for Defendant Chevron, are: Catherine A. Conway, Esq. Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Megan M. Lawson, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com jcripps@gibsondunn.com mlawson@gibsondunn.com The Attorneys for Defendant Newtron, are: Mollie Burks, Esq. Sat Sang S. Khalsa, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (510) 463-8668 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 E-mail: mburks@grsm.com skhalsa@grsm.com The Attorneys for Defendant Performance Mechanical, are: Karin M. Cogbill, Esq. HOPKINS & CARLEY 70 South First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 299-1310 Facsimile: (408) 998-4790 E-mail: kcogbill@hopkinscarley.com CONAGRA FOODS: Court Reverses Wesson Oil Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Troutman, writing for The Center Square, reports that Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced on June 3 that the Ninth Circuit reversed a Wesson Oil class action settlement in which attorneys were compensated considerably more than consumers. Plaintiffs alleged claims from ConAgra Foods, Inc. were misleading as they inaccurately labeled Wesson cooking oil products as "100% Natural." In 2011, consumers filed a putative class-action lawsuit, a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff on behalf of a group of individuals called a class who share a similar struggle. According to the amicus brief, the settlement gave the plaintiffs' attorneys nearly $7 million while giving class members less than $1 million and injunctive relief with no "meaningful value to the class." ConAgra needed to change its labeling and marketing practices if the company bought back the Wesson Oil brand, which the company had sold before the settlement. In April 2020, Brnovich joined a 13-state coalition of state AGs urging the Ninth Circuit to reverse the class action settlement. On June 1, the Ninth Circuit rejected the Wesson Oil settlement. They held that the settlement contained "red flags" which could potentially cause "unfair collusion in the distribution of funds between the class and their counsel." The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court to "to ensure that the parties have not colluded at class members' expense." They agreed with the coalition of AGs that the injunction was ineffectual as it involved Conagra agreeing to do something which was not in its power. "Plaintiff's attorneys should not settle class action lawsuits to simply enrich themselves at the expense of those who have actually been harmed," Brnovich said in a statement. "I applaud the court for rejecting this misguided settlement and shifting the focus back to protecting consumers." Brnovich has raised concerns about unfair class action settlements since 2015. [GN] COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Martinez Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 3:19-cv-05624; N.D. Cal.; filed June 11, 2019). In June 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide meal and rest periods, itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Martinez v. Costco Wholesale Corp. The Company filed an answer denying the material allegations of the complaint. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Defend Rough Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. In May 2019, an employee filed a class action against the Company alleging claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, to provide itemized wage statements, to timely pay wages due to terminating employees, to pay minimum wages, and for unfair business practices. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 2:19-cv-01340; E.D. Cal.). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company has moved for partial summary judgment, and the parties have filed competing motions regarding class certification. In August 2019, Rough filed a companion case in state court seeking penalties under PAGA. Rough v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. FCS053454; Sonoma County Superior Court). Relief is sought under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. The state court action has been stayed pending resolution of the federal action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Jadan Settlement Gets Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------ Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the settlement in the class action suit entitled, Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. received court approval in January 2021. In January 2019, a former seasonal employee filed a class action, alleging failure to provide California seasonal employees meal and rest breaks, proper wage statements, and appropriate wages. Jadan v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 19-CV-340438; Santa Clara Superior Court). The complaint seeks relief under the California Labor Code, including civil penalties and attorneys' fees. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement on a class settlement for an immaterial amount, which received court approval in January 2021. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Kristy Class Action Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the class action suit entitled, Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. Case No. 20CV366341, remains stayed. In April 2020, an employee, alleging underpayment of sick pay, filed a class and representative action against the Company, alleging claims under California law for failure to pay all wages at termination and for Labor Code penalties under PAGA. Kristy v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 5:20-cv-04119; N.D. Cal.). The Company filed a motion to dismiss as to the plaintiff's amended complaint, and the case has been stayed, due to the plaintiff's bankruptcy. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. COSTO WHOLESALE: Cappadora Unpaid Overtime Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 9, 2021, that the company continues to defend a collective and class action suit entitled, Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.). In December 2020, a former employee filed suit against the Company asserting collective and class claims on behalf of non-exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for failure to pay for all hours worked on a weekly basis and failure to provide proper wage statements and notices. The plaintiff also asserts individual retaliation claims. Cappadora v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (Case No. 1:20-cv-06067; E.D.N.Y.). An amended complaint has been filed, and the Company has denied the material allegations of the amended complaint. Costco Wholesale Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates membership warehouses. It offers branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories. The company was formerly known as Costco Companies, Inc. Costco Wholesale Corporation was founded in 1976 and is based in Issaquah, Washington. DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 13 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on June 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Danimer Scientific, Inc. ("Danimer" or the "Company")(NYSE: DNMR) and certain of its officers and directors. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-02708, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Danimer securities between December 30, 2020 and March 19, 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 Danimer securities during the Class Period, you have until July 13, 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. Danimer was formerly known as "Live Oak Acquisition Corp." ("Live Oak"), a publicly-traded special purpose acquisition company. In December 2020, Live Oak consummated a business combination with Meredian Holdings Group, Inc., doing business as Danimer Scientific ("Legacy Danimer"), a performance polymer company specializing in bioplastic replacements for traditional petrochemical-based plastics (the "Business Combination"). Following the Business Combination, Live Oak changed its name to "Danimer Scientific, Inc.," changed its business to Legacy Danimer's business, and replaced its management with Legacy Danimer's management. Since 2020, Legacy Danimer -- and, following the Business Combination, Danimer -- has sold polyhydroxyalkanoates commercially under its proprietary "Nodax" brand name for usage in a wide variety of plastic applications including water bottles, straws, and food containers, among others. The Company has touted Nodax as a 100% biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic, which is purportedly superior to traditional plastics because of its advanced biodegradability. The Company attributes Nodax's advanced biodegradability to microorganisms in nature that eat the bioplastic. 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) Danimer had deficient internal controls; (ii) as a result, the Company had misrepresented, inter alia, its operations' size and regulatory compliance; (iii) Defendants had overstated Nodax's biodegradability, particularly in oceans and landfills; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 20, 2021, the Wall Street Journal ("WSJ") published an article entitled "Plastic Straws That Quickly Biodegrade in the Ocean, Not Quite, Scientists Say" addressing, among other things, Danimer's claims that Nodax breaks down far more quickly than fossil-fuel plastics. The WSJ article alleged that, according to several experts on biodegradable plastics, "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and misleading." While Danimer reportedly asserts its claims are factual, the article cites at least one expert as stating that making broad claims about Nodax's biodegradability "is not accurate" and is "greenwashing." On March 22, 2021, the first trading day following the publication of the WSJ article, Danimer's stock price fell $6.43 per share, or 12.87%, to close at $43.55 per share on March 22, 2021. Following the end of the Class Period, on April 22, 2021, Spruce Point Capital Management ("Spruce Point") published a report on Danimer, noting, among other red flags, various inconsistencies with Legacy Danimer's (and Danimer's) historical and present claims regarding the size of its operations, Nodax's makeup and degradability, and the Company's expected profitability. Following the publication of the Spruce Point report, Danimer's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 8.04%, to close at $22.99 per share on April 22, 2021. Then, on May 4, 2021, Spruce Point published another report on Danimer alleging that the Company had "wildly overstated" production figures, pricing, and financial projections based on documents Spruce Point had acquired from the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Department of Environmental Protection under the Freedom of Information Act, all of which cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Company's internal controls. Following the publication of this second Spruce Point report, Danimer's stock price fell $1.49 per share, or 6.31%, to close at $22.14 per share on April 22, 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] DUFRESNE SPENCER: Loebsack et al. Sue Over Sales Staff's Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case, DANIEL LOEBSACK, ROBERT HASTINGS, ARIANA ROSE and ERIK WISE, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE DUFRESNE SPENCER GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01884 (S.D. Tex., June 9, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly-paid and non-exempt employees - Loebsack as a Salesperson in Houston from August 2012 until July 2019; Hastings as a Salesperson in Abilene from March 2021 until May or June 2021, Rose as a Salesperson in San Fe, New Mexico from June 2020 until May or June 2021, and Wise as an Assistant Sales Manager in Bloomfield, Michigan from 2017 to the present. The Plaintiffs allege that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime compensation by the Defendant for all the hours they performed in excess of 40 hours per week at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. The Plaintiffs also contend that there are at least 300 other employees of the Defendant, who worked as Salespeople, did not receive commissions or received minimal commissions, and did not receive accurate overtime rate due to failure to include the commissions in their regular hourly rate. On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs bring this complaint as a collective action seeking to recover all unpaid overtime wages from the Defendant, as well as liquidated damages, litigation costs together with reasonable attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The Dufresne Spencer Group, LLC owns and operates Ashley HomeStores throughout the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Center Parkway, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Tel: (501) 221-0088 Fax: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DUKE UNIVERSITY: Insurer Must Cover Two Antitrust Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a North Carolina federal judge ruled on June 8 that an excess insurer must face Duke University's suit seeking coverage for two underlying antitrust class actions alleging the university suppressed faculty wages. [GN] EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Iron Workers Fund Appeals Case Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and Irving Lichtman filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit Glen Barnes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edison International, Southern California Edison Company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-09690-CBM-FFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Edison securities between February 23, 2016, and November 12, 2018, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The Plaintiff alleged that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. The Plaintiffs now seek a review of the Court's Order dated April 27, 2021 and May 6, 2021, dismissing the case. The appellate case is captioned as Glen Barnes, et al. v. Edison International, et al., Case No. 21-55589, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 7, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellants Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and Irving Lichtman Mediation Questionnaire is due on July 14, 2021; -- Appellants Iron Workers Local 580 Joint Funds and Irving Lichtman opening brief is due on August 3, 2021; -- Appellees Academy Securities, Inc., C.L. King & Associates, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Theodore F. Craver Jr., Drexel Hamilton, LLC, Edison International, Connie J. Erickson, J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, MUFG Securities Americas, Inc., Mizuho Securities USA, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, PNC Capital Markets, LLC, Kevin M. Payne, William M. Petmecky III, Pedro J. Pizarro, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Maria Rigatti, SCE Trust VI, Samuel A. Ramirez and Co., Inc., William James Scilacci, Southern California Edison Company, TD Securities (USA), LLC, U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC answering brief is due on September 2, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT FUNDS and IRVING LICHTMAN, on behalf of the Irving Lichtman Revocable Living Trust, are represented by: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 - and - Patrick M. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com Defendants-Appellees EDISON INTERNATIONAL, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, PEDRO J. PIZARRO, MARIA RIGATTI, KEVIN M. PAYNE, WILLIAM M. PETMECKY III, THEODORE F. CRAVER, Jr., WILLIAM JAMES SCILACCI, SCE TRUST VI, CONNIE J. ERICKSON, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC., MIZUHO SECURITIES USA, LLC, MUFG SECURITIES AMERICAS, INC., PNC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, TD SECURITIES (USA), LLC, U.S. BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., C.L. KING & ASSOCIATES, INC., DREXEL HAMILTON, LLC, and SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ AND CO., INC. are represented by: Lauren Barnett, Esq. John M. Gildersleeve, Esq. John W. Spiegel, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 983-9250 E-mail: lauren.barnett@mto.com john.gildersleeve@mto.com - and - Charles Duggan, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4785 - and - Mariel Gerlt, Esq. John M. Sorich, Esq. Heather Stern, Esq. PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG, LLP 695 Town Center Drive, 16th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 361-9550 - and - Neal Potischman, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Faces Weiss Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- STEPHEN M. WEISS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS INC., ROBERT G. KRAMER, RICHARD S. LINDAHL and SYED HUSAIN, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-01368-PX (D. Md., June 2, 2021) is brought by the Plaintiff for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent BioSolutions Inc. common stock from April 24, 2020 through April 16, 2021, inclusive. The action arises from the Defendants' numerous misrepresentations and omissions concerning the business and operations of vaccine manufacturer Emergent as well as pervasive quality control problems at the Company's primary Bayview facility in Baltimore, Maryland that culminated in the destruction of up to 100 million COVID-19 Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccine doses. According to the complaint, beginning in the Spring of 2020, the Company claimed it had secured production deals with J&J, AstraZeneca and the U.S. federal government to manufacture COVID-19 vaccine candidates in transactions worth more than $1.5 billion. In announcing the deals, Emergent touted its supposed manufacturing expertise and emphasis on quality control, claiming Emergent was "uniquely prepared" to scale up production due to its "proven manufacturing capabilities" that were purportedly already in place and that it was selected due to its history of "high-quality manufacturing." Allegedly, mone of the Defendants' statements concerning the Company's manufacturing processes, capabilities, quality control procedures and status as a purported leader in the biopharmaceutical manufacturing industry were true. As a result of these disclosures, the price of Emergent's common stock declined $9.77 per share, or more than 12%, from $77.64 per share on April 16, 2021 to close at $67.87 per share on April 19, 2021, added the suit. Mr. Weiss purchased shares of Emergent common stock during the Class Period. Emergent BioSolutions Inc. operates as a global specialty biopharmaceutical company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP Frost Bank Tower 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1170 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 710-5960 E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com - and - Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of June 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on June 8 disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Emergent BioSolutions Inc. ("Emergent" or the "Company") (NYSE:EBS) between April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you purchased or otherwise acquired Emergent common stock during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than June 18, 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. Emergent 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 Emergent Securities Class Litigation Emergent, headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that develops vaccines and antibody therapeutics for infectious diseases. The action alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Emergent's Baltimore manufacturing plant had a history of manufacturing issues which increased the likelihood of widespread contaminations; (2) the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") cited Emergent on multiple occasions for these contamination risks and manufacturing issues; (3) the Baltimore plant was forced to discard millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers failed to follow manufacturing standards; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' public statements about Emergent's ability and capacity to mass manufacture multiple COVID-19 vaccines at its Baltimore facility were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 31, 2021, after the market closed, the New York Times reported on the accidental contamination of COVID-19 vaccines developed by Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca at Emergent's Baltimore plant. According to the Times, in late February 2021, employees at Emergent's Baltimore plant "mixed up" ingredients of the two different COVID-19 vaccines, contaminating up to 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson's vaccine and forcing regulators to delay authorization of the plant's production lines. The massive vaccine lot contamination reportedly went undiscovered for days. On April 1, 2021, the Associated Press reported on Emergent's "history of violations," noting that the FDA has repeatedly cited Emergent for quality control shortcomings. On April 3, the Times reported that the Biden administration put Johnson & Johnson in charge of the Baltimore plant and prohibited it from producing the AstraZeneca vaccine, a significant setback for Emergent, which had touted its "unique" preparedness and "proven manufacturing capabilities" only months earlier. On this news, the price of Emergent's stock price fell $14.29 per share, or over 15% over the next two trading days, from a close of $92.91 per share on March 31, 2021, to close at $78.62 on April 5, 2021. On April 6, the Times further reported on Emergent's past manufacturing problems, revealing that the February contamination incident "was not the first time the company threw out coronavirus vaccine for fear of contamination." According to the Times, investigations "found that Emergent had not followed some basic industry standards at the Baltimore plant, and identified repeated shortcomings in efforts to disinfect and prevent contamination." The Times also reported that in June 2020, a manufacturing expert found that Emergent's staff was insufficiently trained and that the Baltimore facility would require the expenditure "significant resources" to "strengthen" its quality controls in order to handle the COVID-19 manufacturing projects. On April 19, 2021, Emergent filed a Form 8-K revealing that, "[o]n April 16, 2021, at the request of the FDA, Emergent agreed not to initiate the manufacturing of any new material at its Bayview [Baltimore] facility and to quarantine existing material manufactured at the Bayview facility pending completion of the [FDA's] inspection and remediation of any resulting findings." On this news, the price of Emergent common stock declined an additional $9.77 per share, or more than 12%, from its close of $77.64 per share on April 16, 2021, to close at $67.87 per share on April 19, 2021, on elevated trading volume. 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/. Sharon M. Lee Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN] EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Thornton Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of Emergent BioSolutions Inc. (NYSE: EBS). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased EBS stock or other securities between April 24, 2020 and April 16, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/Emergent for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Emergent The case alleges that Emergent and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i) Emergent's Baltimore plant had a history of manufacturing issues increasing the likelihood for massive contaminations; (ii) these longstanding contamination risks and quality control issues at Emergent's facility led to a string of U.S. Food and Drug Administration citations; and (iii) Emergent previously had to discard the equivalent of millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines after workers at the Baltimore plant deviated from manufacturing standards. Interested Emergent investors have until June 18, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead plaintiff. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/Emergent Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/Emergent [GN] ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Cert. in Pelletier Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Endo International Plc, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled ALEXANDRE PELLETIER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHCHIE DE SILVA, SUKETU P. UPADHYAY, AND PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, Case No. 2-17-cv-05114, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 3, 2021, Judge Michael M. Baylson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and appointment of the class representatives and the class counsel. The Lead Plaintiffs have moved for certification of the action as a class action on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired ordinary shares of Endo, and appointment of the class representatives and the class counsel, pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), and 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Defendant is now seeking a review of the Class Certification Order entered by Judge Baylson. The appellate case is captioned as Alexandre Pelletier, et al. v. Endo International plc, et al., Case No. 21-8035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 4, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners ENDO INTERNATIONAL PLC, RAJIV KANISHKA LIYANAARCHIE DE SILVA, SUKETU P. UPADHYAY, and PAUL V. CAMPANELLI are represented by: Michael Bern, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 - and - James E. Brandt, Esq. Blake T. Denton, Esq. Brittany K. Dryer, Esq. Thomas J. Giblin, Jr., Esq. Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. Amanda C. Meinhold, Esq. Gregory Mortenson, Esq. Miles N. Ruthberg, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS 1271 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 - and - J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. Laura H. McNally, Esq. Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-4806 Plaintiffs-Respondents ALEXANDRE PELLETIER and NATHAN JOSEPH DOLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; and BUCKS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FUND are represented by: Vincent A. Coppola, Esq. PRIBANIC PRIBANIC & ARCHINACO 513 Court Place, First Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-8844 - and - Brandon Cordovi, Esq. Michael Grunfeld, Esq. POMERANTZ 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ 10 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 - and - David S. Kaskela, Esq. 201 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (484) 258-1585 - and - Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq. LEVAN MUHIC STAPLETON 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 561-1500 - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq. Carson B. Morris, Esq. Lawrence F. Stengel, Esq. SAXTON & STUMP 280 Granite Run Drive, Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 17601 Telephone: (717) 556-1080 - and - Desiree Cummings, Esq. Chad Johnson, Esq. Jonathan Zweig, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 125 Park Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 693-1058 - and - Daniel S. Drosman, Esq. Kevin A. Lavelle, Esq. Sean McGuire, Esq. Danielle S. Myers, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 ENTERPRISE LEASING: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Benson ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Enterprise Holdings, Inc. and Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando, LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled ELVA BENSON v. ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF ORLANDO, LLC; and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00891-RBD-LRH, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1, 2020, the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification: a. The following class was certified for the WARN Act claim against Defendant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.: "All Enterprise employees who worked at or reported to Enterprise facilities in the United States and were terminated without cause on April 24, 2020, or within 14 days of April 24, 2020, or in anticipation of, or as the foreseeable consequence of, the mass layoff or plant closing ordered on April 24, 2020, and who are affected employees, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. section 2101(a)(5), who do not file a timely request to opt-out of the class, and who also did not sign a severance agreement with Enterprise. b. The Court appointed the Plaintiff Elva Benson as Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative. c. The Court appointed Brandon J. Hill, Esq. and Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as co-lead Class Counsel. d. In all other respects, the Motion was denied. The Court said, "Benson argues a class action is a superior method of resolving the WARN Act claim because small individual payouts make individual suits impracticable. The Defendants argue a class action is inferior, as there would be no way to try the case without splintering off into mini-trials. As discussed, the individual questions are small and manageable, so there is no need for "mini-trials." As the potential individual economic payout is small (less than $6,000, on average) and there is no indication any other plaintiff has begun an individual action against any Enterprise organization on these WARN Act claims, Benson has shown a class action is the superior method of adjudicating these claims." The appellate case is captioned as Elva Benson v. Enterprise Leasing Company of, et al., Case No. 21-11911, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on June 4, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before June 18, 2021 as to Appellant Enterprise Holdings, Inc.; and -- Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons is due on or before July 2, 2021 as to Appellee Elva Benson. [BN] Defendants-Appellants ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY OF ORLANDO, LLC and ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC. are represented by: Christina M. Kennedy, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 482-8400 E-mail: ckennedy@foley.com - and - Michael D. Leffel, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER, LLP 150 E Gilman St Ste 5000 Madison, WI 53703-1482 Telephone: (608) 257-5035 E-mail: mleffel@foley.com - and - Brian Alan Richman, Esq. Jason C. Schwartz, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 1050 Connecticut Ave NW Fl 3 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 887-3621 E-mail: mleffel@foley.com Plaintiff-Appellee ELVA BENSON, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, is represented by: Luis Antonio Cabassa, Esq. Brandon Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 440-4593 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms $380.5MM Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- L. Conrad Anderson IV, Esq., Tyler Bishop, Esq., Gregory Cook, Esq., of Balch & Bingham LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the $380.5M settlement in the Equifax data breach class actions -- a settlement which the district court called "the largest and most comprehensive recovery in a data breach case in U.S. history by several orders of magnitude." The appeal was brought by 6 objectors out of the 147 million class members whose data was involved in the breach. The Eleventh Circuit's 64-page ruling covers the waterfront of class action law and provides important insight into how the Eleventh Circuit views two key issues: (1) standing to sue for a data breach; (2) attorneys' fees and incentive awards in class action settlements; and (3) the breadth of a district court's discretion in managing the class action process. First, Objectors claimed class members who did not have (or have not yet had) their identities stolen as a result of the data breach did not have standing to sue. Objectors argued these class members suffered no injury in fact simply by virtue of their data being exposed. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, holding that the risk of these class members' identities being stolen was "certainly impending," and this risk was sufficient to confer standing. Over the last year, the Eleventh Circuit has issued several decisions on standing. Compare Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. 979 F.3d 917, 924, 927 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (mere "elevated risk of identity theft" is insufficient). In fact, and at least one judge on the Eleventh Circuit appears to be rethinking the intellectual foundations of this doctrine. See Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, 996 F.3d 1110, 1115 (11th Cir. 2021) (Newson, J., concurring). For the present, the Equifax decision on standing should probably be seen as based upon the scope of the information which was taken in the data breach, which included: names, birthdates, social security numbers, addresses, driver's license numbers, and tax identification numbers. Objectors also claimed that the settlement did not redress class members' injuries since nothing about the settlement prevented third parties from using class members' data. The Eleventh Circuit quickly dismissed this argument as well, noting Objectors' focus was misplaced: The Plaintiffs had sued Equifax - not third parties. Because the settlement obligated Equifax to reimburse class members up to $20,000 of out-of-pocket expenses incurred because of the data breach, reimburse class members $25 per hour for up to 20 hours spent taking preventative measures to guard against identity theft, and provide 10 years of free credit monitoring and seven years of identity restoration services, the Court reasoned that the settlements would help to limit Plaintiff's injuries. Of particular interest to readers of this blog is the Eleventh Circuit's discussion of Class Counsel's attorneys' fees award. Objectors challenged the $77.5M attorneys' fees award as unreasonable. One Objector claimed the court must employ an "economies of scale" analysis to fees awards in cases of this size -- which the Objector termed "megafund" cases. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument out of hand because there is no requirement under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 or governing case law that the court weigh economies of scale in determining the reasonableness of an attorneys' fees award in any case, regardless of size. The Court also noted that requiring consideration of economies of scale would create perverse incentives by encouraging quick settlements at sub-optimal levels. Instead, the Court held other factors taken into consideration by the district court reasonably captured considerations related to economics of scale. The Court affirmed the $77.5M attorneys' fees award, using the "percentage method" to evaluate the reasonableness of the award. This was the same method the district court used in setting the fees award. The percentage method calculates fees as percentage of the total settlement fund. Courts consider a 20-30% fee to be per se reasonable, with a 25% fee being the benchmark in some decisions. Class Counsel's fees award in Equifax was only 20.6% of the $380.5M settlement, and therefore, well within the range of reasonable attorneys' fees awards. Another question which often arises in class settlements is the requirements placed by the district court upon objectors. On the one hand, the federal courts encourage objectors to raise legitimate questions regarding settlements. On the other hand, the courts have been plagued by serial objectors as documented in the committee hearings leading to the recent changes to Rule 23. The procedures in the Equifax case are somewhat more onerous than some prior settlements but this did not appear to trouble the Eleventh Circuit. The district court required all objections to provide the objector's name and address, the objector's personal signature, the grounds for the objection, a list of previous objections in recent class actions, and dates on which the objector was available to be deposed. In addition, if the objector had counsel who intended to speak at the fairness hearing, the objection needed to include the legal and factual basis for the objection and the evidence to be offered at the hearing. Finally, if the objector had counsel who sought compensation from anyone other than the objector, the objection needed to include a list of counsel's previous objections in recent class actions, counsel's experience in class action litigation, and information on the fees sought. The district court imposed these requirements because objectors had appeared "out of the blue" in previous class actions and created a "really chaotic process" it hoped to avoid in Equifax. The district court noted these requirements would also rout out lawyer-driven objections filed with ulterior motives. An Objector claimed these requirements infringed on objectors' rights to be heard and be represented by counsel and were unduly burdensome. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, noting the district court had broad discretion to manage class actions and that Objectors failed to show the district court abused that discretion. The Eleventh Circuit found the district court's stated intent of avoiding a "chaotic process" was sufficient reason to impose additional administrative requirements. The Eleventh Circuit held these additional requirements were "not particularly burdensome" because most of the requirements were only clerical in requiring objectors to provide certain information. The Court also reasoned that although the deposition requirement was potentially burdensome, depositions are "a normal part of litigation." While the Eleventh Circuit noted there may be a legitimate concern that discovery requirements such as sitting for deposition could deter objectors, the district court found this concern was at odd with the number of objections received -- 388 in total -- and concluded it did not dissuade objection in this case. The Eleventh Circuit agreed. However, the Eleventh Circuit reminded the district court that whether any set of objection requirements constituted an abuse of discretion would be a case-specific inquiry because the breadth of the district court's discretion to manage the class settlement process "ebbed and flowed" with "the size and administrative difficulties of each class action." Given that the Equifax class contained nearly 150 million members, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the imposition of additional administrative requirements for objectors to its settlement. The Eleventh Circuit only reversed one part of the settlement - the incentive fees award to the named class members. In some circuits, incentive fees are routinely awarded to named plaintiffs as a "thank you" for bringing the lawsuit on behalf of the other class members. Although the district court initially included incentive fees in its approval of the settlement, a subsequent Eleventh Circuit case held incentive fees awards are prohibited. See Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020). The Johnson Plaintiffs have petitioned the Eleventh Circuit for rehearing en banc. In the meantime, the Court reversed this portion of the order approving the Equifax settlement and remanded the case to the lower court for the limited purpose of vacating the incentive fees award. [GN] FAMOUS ITALIAN: Underpays Pizza Delivery Drivers, De Jesus Says --------------------------------------------------------------- FACUNDO SANCHEZ DE JESUS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAMOUS ITALIAN VILLAGE INC., (d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA), 1494 FIRST AVE RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA), JGL RESTAURANT CORP. (d/b/a ITALIAN VILLAGE PIZZA), Joseph Notaro, Christian Leon, and JOSE LEON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-04870 (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated workers accurate minimum wages and overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, failed to pay spread-of-hours premium for all hours worked in excess of 10 hours in a day, failed to furnish a wage notice upon hiring, failed to provide accurate wage statements, failed to reimburse costs and expenses for purchasing and maintaining equipment, and engaged in unlawful deductions from tips. Plaintiff Sanchez is a former employee of the Defendants, employed ostensibly as a delivery worker. The Defendants own, operate, and control an Italian restaurant located in New York under the name "Italian Village Pizza."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 FORD MOTOR: Judge to Decide on Ford F-150 V8 Engine Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guillaume Rivar, writing for The Car Guide, reports that the Ford F-150 is the target of a new class action lawsuit due to alleged defects in the 5.0-litre "Coyote" V8 engine that are said to result in excessive oil consumption. The lawsuit was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by McKenzie Lake Lawyers on behalf of William Kennedy, the owner of a 2018 F-150. It covers all 2018-2020 Ford F-150 models equipped with said V8 engine. Kennedy bought his truck in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador in 2018 and started experiencing problems with oil consumption within a year. This includes "low oil levels, low oil pressure, engine and spark plug knock, fouled piston rings and a lack of lubrication in the engines." Performance is reduced and multiple engine components suffer damage which finally causes the engine to stall or fail completely, the lawsuit alleges. So far, none of the remedies seem to fix the problem definitely. One of them is replacing the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) valve. It's also possible that excessive oil consumption is caused by the piston and oil rings which don't maintain enough tension to keep oil in the crankcase, thus allowing excess oil to flow into the combustion chamber and through the exhaust. Ford has "longstanding knowledge" of the alleged defects but failed to warn F-150 customers about the Coyote V8 engine problems, according to the lawsuit. Kennedy said he wouldn't have purchased the truck if the company had warned him about the problem. A judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice will now decide whether to authorize the class action lawsuit or not. [GN] GENERAL MILLS: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on Friday, June 4, U.S. District Judge James Lorenz denied preliminary approval of a General Mills class action settlement due to signs of collusion. The California federal judge said the deal raises questions about whether class counsel really had the consumers' interests in mind, as the deal offers no money to the class, but a large payout to the attorneys. In December 2017, consumers filed a class action lawsuit against General Mills, claiming that its fruit-flavored snacks (Fruit Roll-Ups) were intentionally mislabeled as all natural. The suit alleged that the products were advertised as "naturally flavored" and containing "no artificial flavors" but contained malic acid. General Mills and the class of consumers recently reached a settlement agreement which would require minimal label changes to the product's packaging. Under the proposal, General Mills would display an asterisk next to the "no artificial flavors" claim, with the asterisk directing consumers to the company's website where it would be mentioned that the product may "contain synthetic malic acid or other acidulants" and that "malic acid is intended for use not as a flavor or to impart the characterizing flavor of these products, but is a substance the FDA approves for multiple uses including a flavor enhancer, a flavoring agent or adjuvant, or as a pH control agent." The settlement would provide no money to class members and instead provide a $725,000 payout to the attorneys for fees and costs. Such an agreement strays far from the class's original request for monetary relief. The court ultimately found that the settlement falls short of a fair and adequate settlement to resolve the class claims and denied the proposed deal. [GN] GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Over 2.4L Ecotec Engines ----------------------------------------------------------- Sam Mceachern, writing for GM Authority, reports that General Motors is facing a new class-action lawsuit in Canada that alleges vehicles equipped with its naturally aspirated 2.4L Ecotec four-cylinder engine have a propensity to burn oil. According to Car Complaints, the plaintiff in the lawsuit owns a 2012 model year Chevy Equinox crossover equipped with the 2.4L Ecotec four-cylinder engine. In September of 2017, the vehicle's engine stalled and was later diagnosed with a complete engine failure. The problem was allegedly traced back to excessive oil consumption, with the plaintiff claiming affected engines consume as much as 0.946 litres of engine oil per 1,600 kilometres of driving. Like other GM engine oil consumption lawsuits we've covered, this suit says the piston rings fail to maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the crankcase, allowing the oil to sneak past the rings and fall into the combustion chamber. This can allegedly foul the spark plugs and also create carbon buildup on the pistons and cylinder walls. If the oil levels reach a certain point, engine components may become damaged and the engine may overheat, eventually leading to total engine failure. Car Complaints' reports this lawsuit also lists a number of other problems with affected 2.4L Ecotec engines, including defective spray kets, defective active fuel management system, defective PCV systems and defective oil life monitoring systems. These other issues compound with the defective piston rings to exacerbate the problem, the suit indicates. Other oil burning-related lawsuits filed against GM in the United States have been thrown out, as GM's warranty does not cover design defects, only manufacturing defects. The problems with these engines can be traced back to design defects, the automaker has argued previously, so its factory warranty is not applicable to these problems. We'll provide an update on the Canadian oil burn lawsuit against GM as it progresses through the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the coming months. [GN] GLENCO CONTRACTING: Guzman et al. Seek Carpenters' Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ SANTOS G. GUZMAN and CHRISTIAN D. JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLENCO CONTRACTING GROUP INC. and DAVID MCGRATH as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05100 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as carpenters and to perform other miscellaneous duties, assert that although they and other similarly situated carpenters worked more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants did not pay them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours they worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records and to post notices of the minimum and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL. The Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime wages for themselves and other similarly situated carpenters, as well as liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. Glenco Contacting Group, Inc. provides construction services. David McGrath is the owner and operator of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9598 GN NETCOM: Dechert Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling in Liability Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Birnbaum, Esq., Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Esq., Gabrielle Piper, Esq., Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq., and Lincoln Wilson, Esq., of Dechert LLP, in an article for Dechert LLP, reported that the Ninth Circuit became the first federal circuit court to directly address the December 2018 revision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) in Briseño v. Henderson, a consumer class action involving "100% Natural" labeling for Wesson cooking oil. In a colorful opinion loaded with pop culture allusions ranging from Hamilton to the Bachelor to Matthew McConaughey, the Ninth Circuit held that under Rule 23(e), federal courts were required to "scrutinize attorneys' fees for potential collusion that shortchanges the class, even in post-class certification settlements." Briseño v. Henderson, ___ F.3d ___, 2021 WL 2197968, at *13 (9th Cir. June 1, 2021). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's approval of an almost US$8 million class action settlement that resulted in compensation of less than US$1 million to the class members and US$6.83 million in attorneys' fees and expenses. While district courts in the Ninth Circuit have been required to closely review pre-certification settlements for collusion under In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation, 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011), the Briseño opinion held that, in light of the fairness factors adopted in the revised Rule 23(e), the In re Bluetooth standard also applied to post-certification settlements. Defendants should prepare for the possibility of this more stringent review of Bluetooth and Briseño in negotiating and seeking approval of class action settlements, particularly within the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit held that "[w]hile courts should not casually second-guess class settlements brokered by the parties, they should not greenlight them, either, just because the parties profess that their dubious deal is 'all right, all right, all right.'" Briseño, 2021 WL 2197968, at *1. The appellate court applied to a post-certification settlement the standard of In re Bluetooth, which requires courts to scrutinize attorneys' fee agreements in class action settlements for "subtle signs that class counsel have allowed pursuit of their own self-interests to infect the negotiations." 654 F.3d at 947. Bluetooth identified three major signs of potential attorney collusion: (1) "when counsel receives a disproportionate distribution of the settlement"; (2) "when the parties negotiate a 'clear sailing arrangement,'" under which the defendant agrees not to challenge a request for an agreed upon attorney's fee; and (3) when the agreement contains a "kicker" or "reverter" clause that returns unawarded fees to the defendant, rather than the class." Briseño, 2021 WL 2197968, at *6. Applying Bluetooth, the Ninth Circuit described the settlement as containing "a bevy of questionable provisions that reeks of collusion at the expense of the class members." Id. at *1. The terms the Ninth Circuit identified as questionable included the following: Disproportionate Distribution of "Claims Made" Settlement. The terms of the "claims made" Briseño settlement required the defendant to pay almost US$7 million in attorneys' fees and expenses, but the class received less than US$1 million dollars because the redemption rate for its 15 million members was only 0.5%. The Ninth Circuit remarked that the Briseño class amount was "no surprise, given how the parties knowingly structured the settlement." Id. The Court acknowledged that class action redemption rates are low in claims-made settlements that involve small-ticket items and when the defendant, as in Briseño, was not required to provide direct notice to the class. The Ninth Circuit found that the disparity in distribution of funds between the class members and class counsel "raises an urgent red flag demanding more attention and scrutiny." Id. Unreasonable Attorneys' Fee Awards. While the district court found that the almost US$7 million attorneys' fee award was reasonable compared to the lodestar amount of US$11.5 million, the Ninth Circuit held that comparison to the lodestar amount alone is not an accurate measure of whether a settlement agreement is reasonable, ruling that "even attorneys' fees based on a reasonable percentage of an unreasonable number of hours [spent on pointless motions or unnecessary discovery] are still unreasonable." Briseño, 2021 WL 2197968, at *8. The Sailing Arrangement. The Briseño settlement agreement had a "sailing arrangement" where the defendant agreed not to challenge the agreed-upon fees for class counsel. The Ninth Circuit advised that these types of sailing agreements "signal[] the potential that a defendant agreed to pay class counsel excessive fees in exchange for counsel accepting a lower amount for the class members." Id. at *9. The Court further warned that the "very existence of a clear sailing provision increases the likelihood that class counsel will have bargained away something of value to the class." Id. The "Kicker" Clause. The Briseño attorneys' fee award contained a "kicker" clause in which the defendant, not the class, received the remaining funds if the district court rejected and reduced the parties' agreed-upon amount of attorneys' fees. The Ninth Circuit noted that the "kicker" clause may prevent any Rule 23(h) challenge of the attorney fee amount -- since the class would not directly benefit from any redress, a class member may not have standing to raise an objection to the amount. Reliance on the Value of the Injunction. During settlement negotiations, and motivated by business reasons outside of the litigation, the defendant in Briseño removed the product labeling that class members alleged was misleading and sold the product brand to another company. Still, the terms of the Briseño settlement provided injunctive relief for class members in the event that the defendant reacquired the brand in the future. While the district court found the injunctive relief had "some value," the Ninth Circuit held that approval of the injunction of an unspecified value constituted reversible error. The Ninth Circuit held the injunction was "virtually worthless," explaining that the defendant's "promise [was] about as meaningful and enduring as a proposal in the Final Rose ceremony on the Bachelor." Id. at *10. While the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that disproportionate fee awards, clear sailing agreements, and kicker clauses, may in some instances, "be elements of a good deal," it reiterated its warnings from Bluetooth that those types of agreements "may also signal a collusive settlement, [so] district courts must scrutinize them when they appear." Id. at *9. Briseño requires courts and practitioners to take just as close of a look at the terms of attorneys' fees award agreements in post-class certification settlements as they do in pre-class certification. Briseño calls on federal courts, under the revised Rule 23(e), to "balance the 'proposed award of attorney's fees' vis-a-vis the 'relief provided for the class' in determining whether the settlement is 'adequate' for class members." Id. at *13. Although the likelihood of a finding of collusion diminishes after a class is certified, even in post-certification cases, defendants should structure settlement negotiations and approval papers with Briseño in mind. [GN] GRUBHUB INC: Michaeli Bakery Files Class Action Over Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Bowery Boogie reports that a popular Lower East Side bakery filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against digital delivery platforms, including Grubhub, DoorDash,and Uber Eats, alleging the companies billed it and other restaurants more than allowed by New York City law. According a report in the Wall Street Journal, the Michaeli Bakery on Division Street sued the platforms in response to its latest fee structure. Claiming that these fees go beyond city-imposed caps enacted last year as a way to help restaurants during the pandemic lockdown. The limits are 15% for delivery and 5% for other fees, based on a customer's order. Under the current city laws, ordering and delivery platforms can charge a credit card processing fee in addition to the combined 20% cap but only as a "pass through" fee equivalent to what the processing companies impose. The claim also alleges a routine inflation of the processing fees. "[It is] a blatant violation of the law," Michaeli's attorney, Lee N. Jacobs, told the paper. He also relayed that other businesses plan to join the case if it becomes a class action. [GN] GRUBHUB INC: New York City Eateries File Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Tabacco, writing for Law Street, reports that a class action complaint alleged on June 8 that despite local legislation, New York City eateries suffered at the hands of third-party delivery app companies during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the fees they were charged. The lawsuit brought claims for relief under New York City ordinances enacted last year and named Grubhub and its subsidiary Seamless, Uber and its subsidiaries Uber Eats and Postmates, and DoorDash as defendants. According to the complaint, the defendants reportedly represent the four major third-party delivery platforms in New York City. Grubhub and Seamless represent 37% of sales, DoorDash 34%, Uber Eats 28%, and Postmates 1% as of April. The filing explained the timeline of events leading up to the conduct at issue, starting with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's declaration of a statewide state of emergency on March 7, 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic emerged. A week later, Cuomo prohibited restaurants and bars from serving food and drink at their locations. On May 13, 2020, the New York City Council reportedly passed emergency legislation placing a cap on the "exorbitant delivery fees" that the defendants were exacting from restaurants for their services. The local government allegedly did so "in an effort to curb the imbalance of power between small locally owned restaurants and powerful national third-party delivery companies." Effective June 2, 2020, the city council enacted legislation capping all fees that the defendants could charge eateries at 20%, with a specific cap on deliveries at 15%, and marketing, credit card processing, and other fees at 5%. Amended, non-retroactive legislation passed in September 2020 allowed "pass-through" costs, such as credit card fees, to be charged to restaurants above the specific caps. The filing alleged that the defendants "restructured their fees to appear to comply with the laws, but in actuality continued to charge Plaintiff and the class members above the permitted fee caps." The delivery companies reportedly did so by charging a flat 20% service fee without clearly identifying what the fee was for, which allegedly violated both the delivery fee and the additional fee cap as neither may be greater than 20%, or by keeping their delivery fee under the 15% cap, but then overcharging the plaintiff with respect to other non-delivery fees. Additionally, the complaint claimed, the defendants "fraudulently inflated their credit card processing fees in order to further extort fees" from New York City restaurants. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class composed of all New York City food service establishments that contracted with the defendants for delivery services and were improperly charged for those services. The filing seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, several types of damages, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Helbraun & Levey LLP. [GN] HANDLEBAR INC: Dancers Slams Illegal Tip Pool, Seek Minimum Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- Alethia Tyler, Danielle Williams and April Motes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Handlebar, Inc., Robert L. Brown, Jr., Robin A. Colvin, Doe Managers 1 through 3 and Does 4 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00321, (E.D. Va., June 7, 2021) seeks damages for violations of the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally withholding tips and demanding illegal fees. Defendants operate as "Clancy's" in Norfolk, VA where Plaintiffs worked as "exotic dancers." Plaintiffs were compensated exclusively through tips from customers. Clancy's allegedly failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked and failed to notify Plaintiffs about the tip credit allowance before the credit was utilized. Dancers did not retain all of their tips and instead required that they divide their tips amongst other employees who do not customarily and regularly receive tips in violation of the tip-pool law, asserts the complaint. Clancy's allegedly demanded illegal kickbacks in the form of "House Fees," it adds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Suzanne S. Long, Esq. David A.C. Long, Esq. MEYER BALDWIN LONG & MOORE, LLP 5600 Grove Avenue Richmond, VA 23226 Telephone: (804) 285-3888 Fax: (804) 285-7779 Email: slong@meyerbaldwin.com dlong@meyerbaldwin.com - and - Alejandro Marin, Esq. John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LLP 12540 Beatrice Street, Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90066 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Fax: (310) 507-7906 Email: alejandro@kristensenlaw.com - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: leigh@hughesellzey.com HAWAII: Inmates File Class Action Over COVID-19 Outbreaks --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Hawaii inmates says the state has failed to protect people from COVID-19 outbreaks in unsanitary jails. The lawsuit says nearly half of the people in Hawaii custody have contracted the virus and that five out of nine facilities have experienced "uncontrolled outbreaks." The lawsuit describes conditions including cells that aren't sanitized or cleaned when virus-positive inmates move out and a new person moves in. A spokeswoman for the state Department of Public Safety says the agency has been advised not to comment on possible pending legal matters. [GN] HEXO CORP: Securities Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- HEXO Corp ("HEXO", or the "Company") (TSX: HEXO; NYSE: HEXO) announced on June 9 that it has won a dismissal of the securities class action pending in the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. As previously disclosed, HEXO and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named in shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York; the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court for the State of New York, New York County; and the Province of Quebec. The suits alleged that HEXO made material misstatements and omitted material information in its prior disclosures to investors regarding various issues, including but not limited to its estimated sales revenues during Q4 2019 and fiscal year 2020, its supply agreement with the SQDC, and the facilities acquired from Newstrike. The Southern District of New York previously dismissed the U.S. federal securities class action in that venue on March 8, 2021. No appeal was taken from that dismissal. Following oral argument on June 3, 2021, Justice Andrew Borrok of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County granted HEXO's motion to dismiss the state court securities class action. The court agreed with HEXO that the plaintiffs "fail[ed] to identify any facts which were known or should be known which rendered the offering documents materially misleading at the time they were issued." Plaintiffs have a right to appeal. "We are pleased that a second U.S. court has now determined that the U.S. securities class action claims against HEXO are without merit," said HEXO General Counsel Roch Vaillancourt. "While the Quebec litigation remains pending, today's ruling should further help reduce our litigation burden as we continue closing and integrating our recent acquisitions, to pursue our goal of becoming a top-three global cannabis products company." About HEXO HEXO is an award-winning licensed producer of innovative products for the global cannabis market. HEXO serves the Canadian recreational market with a brand portfolio including HEXO, UP Cannabis, Original Stash, Bake Sale, Namaste, and REUP brands, and the medical market in Canada, Israel and Malta. The Company also serves the Colorado market through its Powered by HEXO(R) strategy and Truss CBD USA, a joint-venture with Molson Coors. In the event that the previously announced transactions to acquire 48North and Redecan close, HEXO expects to be the number one cannabis products company in Canada by recreational market share. For more information, please visit www.hexocorp.com. [GN] HEXO CORP: U.S. Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ottawa Business Journal reports that Ottawa-based Hexo says another U.S. court has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against the firm on behalf of shareholders who claimed the pot producer misled them. Hexo said on June 9 that the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County ruled that the plaintiffs in the suit "fail(ed) to identify any facts which were known or should be known which rendered the offering documents materially misleading at the time they were issued." The plaintiffs can still appeal the ruling. It was the second U.S. court victory for Hexo this year. In March, the U.S. District Court for the Southern Region of New York dismissed another class-action suit alleging the firm deceived investors and failed to disclose problems in the business. A third class-action suit filed against Hexo in Quebec remains before the courts. "While the Quebec litigation remains pending, the June 9 ruling should further help reduce our litigation burden as we continue closing and integrating our recent acquisitions, to pursue our goal of becoming a top-three global cannabis products company," Hexo general counsel Roch Vaillancourt said in a statement. Hexo was one of three major Canadian pot producers listed on U.S. stock exchanges that were hit with class-action suits last year alleging they exaggerated or overestimated sales figures and market potential. According to media reports in February 2020, Hexo was accused of failing to inform investors it was inflating its revenue figures by sending retailers more products than they were able to sell. The court filing also said the company didn't tell investors its cannabis inventory was misstated and that a facility it acquired from a rival producer in 2019 was growing pot without proper federal approvals. Smiths Falls-based Canopy Growth, Canada's largest pot producer, and Edmonton's Aurora Cannabis have also faced lawsuits alleging they exaggerated or overestimated market demand for their products. [GN] HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Synergy Hotels Sues Over Unfair Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Synergy Hotels, LLC, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals and entities, Plaintiffs, v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC, Six Continents Hotels, Inc. and IHG Owners Association, Inc., Case No. 21-cv-03248 (S.D. Ohio, June 7, 2021), seeks monetary damages, injunctive and other relief for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and recovery for violations of the Sherman Act. Six Continents Hotels, Inc. does business under the name "InterContinental Hotels Group," operating approximately some 5,600 hotels across more than 15 brands, owning, franchising and/or managing hotels for third parties, with Holiday Inn as its mainstay chain, under such brands as Holiday Inn, Holiday Inn Express and Holiday Inn Resorts. It also owns, manages and/or franchises other hotel brands such as Crowne Plaza, InterContinental, Staybridge Suites, Candlewood Suites, Hotel Indigo, Regent and Kimpton. InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) also owns Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC (HHF), its affiliate which offers and sells Holiday Inn brand franchises including, but not limited to, Holiday Inn where HHF enters into franchise agreements including that with Synergy Hotels. IHG and HHF are alleged of using certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of goods and services necessary to run a hotel that impose well above-market procurement costs. IHG/HHF also forces its franchisees to frequently undertake expensive renovations, remodeling and construction and in so doing manipulates and shortens the warranty periods on mandated products the franchisees must purchase. Synergy Hotels is a franchisee that owns and operates a hotel in Orbetz, Ohio that bears a HHF brand mark pursuant to a License Agreement. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle, Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON CO., LPA 305 W. Nationwide Blvd Columbus, OH 43215 Tel: (866) 827-6537 Email: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com - and - Andrew P. Bleiman, Esq. Mark Fishbein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 1363 Shermer Road, Suite 318 Northbrook, IL 60062 Tel: (312) 206-5162 Fax: (732) 219-0625 Email: andrew@marksklein.com mark@marksklein.com - and - Justin M. Klein, Esq. MARKS & KLEIN, LLP 63 Riverside Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: (732) 747-7100 Fax: (732) 219-0625 Email: justin@marksklein.com - and - Justin E. Proper, TA, Esq. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP 1650 Market Street One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395 Phone: (215) 864-7165 Email: properj@whiteandwilliams.com IKE & MIKE: Williamson Seeks Delivery Drivers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- The case, LESLIE WILLAIMSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. IKE & MIKE PIZZA, LLC d/b/a DOMINO'S PIZZA and STEPHEN CORONIS, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00507 (W.D. Tex., June 9, 2021) challenges the Defendant's alleged unlawful policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately April 2018 to January 2020 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's stores located in Jonestown and Burnet, Texas and within the District. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant failed to adequately reimburse him and other similarly situated delivery drivers for the automobile expenses they have incurred. The Defendant allegedly employed a flawed reimbursement policy which reimburses drivers on a per delivery basis or per mileage basis that equates to below the IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or less than a reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. Due to the Defendant's systemic failure to adequately reimburse automobile expenses, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers' net wages are diminished beneath the federal minimum wage requirements, thereby failing to pay them the federally mandated minimum wage, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated seeking to recover compensatory damages and liquidated damages from the Defendants, as well as litigation costs and attorney's fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, and other relief as the Court deems fair and equitable. Ike & Mike Pizza, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza operates numerous Domino's Pizza franchise stores. Stephen Coronis is an owner, officer and director of the Corporate Defendant. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (469) 399-1070 E-mail: mmathews@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com ILLINOIS: Former State Lawmaker's Class Action Seeks Back Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Mansur, writing for Capitol News Illinois, reports that a former state lawmaker is suing the state comptroller for salary increases he claims he was entitled to while serving in the Illinois General Assembly for 12 years, even though he voted against those raises as a lawmaker. Former Rep. Mike Fortner joins two other former state senators in filing separate lawsuits against Illinois Comptroller Susana Mendoza over pay raises that they argue are mandated by the state constitution. Fortner served in the Illinois General Assembly from January 2007 to January 2019 as a Republican representing suburban West Chicago. Former Democratic Sens. Michael Noland, from Elgin, and James Clayborne Jr., from Belleville, filed a similar lawsuit in 2017 and 2018 for not receiving salary increases. Fortner's class-action lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court claims that the automatic cost of living increases to lawmakers' salaries were eliminated in violation of the Illinois Constitution. He argues that the laws passed by the Illinois General Assembly to change lawmakers' salaries in the middle of their term violates the section of the constitution that states salary changes for lawmakers "shall not take effect during the term for which he has been elected." In a statement, Mendoza called the lawsuit "an ill-advised class(less) action lawsuit seeking to retroactively take from taxpayers money for raises he voted not to take through legislation he co-sponsored." "If the court orders the state to take up to $10 million or more of taxpayers' money to pay all former legislators raises they voted not to take, I will send legislators the forms state employees can already use to distribute a portion of their salaries to charity," Mendoza said in the statement. Fortner's lawsuit claims that the General Assembly passed 10 laws between 2009 and 2018 that eliminated lawmakers' cost-of-living adjustments mid-term, and five laws between 2009 and 2013 that imposed mid-term furlough days that reduced lawmakers' pay. It claims that the statutes are void because they violate the constitution, and Fortner is entitled to receive his full salary adjustments for the period from July 2009 to January 2019, as well as the payments that were withheld as furlough days. In July 2019, a Cook County judge agreed with this argument in the case involving Noland and Clayborne, and ruled that the laws were unconstitutional because they altered wages during terms for which the lawmakers were elected. In April, the judge ruled that Noland and Clayborne are entitled to the salaries that were withheld when the legislature passed laws to freeze cost-of-living increases and implement furlough days. Mendoza has appealed that ruling. Fortner's class action lawsuit also seeks the back pay from withheld salary increases on behalf of the other members of the General Assembly who served in the legislature from July 1, 2009, to June 30, 2019, and back pay from the withheld furlough days for those members who served between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014. The lawsuit states that there are more than 200 people who could be members of the proposed class. Fortner said in an emailed statement that his lawsuit is an attempt "to end further piece meal litigation over the payment of unconstitutionally-withheld salary to members of the General Assembly serving between 2009 and 2019." In the case involving Noland and Clayborne, the judge "limited the recovery to only the two former legislators who sued despite seeking payment of withheld salary for all impacted legislators," according to the statement. "The court's decision is now pending on appeal," Fortner said in the statement. "It is my hope that this class action will end further litigation on this subject once and for all and expedite the payment of withheld salary to all legislators serving between 2009 and 2019." The total cost of withheld cost-of-living pay raises for lawmakers between 2010 and 2019 is estimated at $14.4 million, according to a WBEZ report. Fortner is represented by Michael Scotti III and Eric Madiar, a lobbyist who previously served as the former Senate parliamentarian and chief legal counsel to former Senate President John Cullerton. His attorneys declined to comment beyond his emailed statement. Fortner's lawsuit, which was filed on June 1, came one day after members of the General Assembly passed a state budget that includes a $1,181 increase to their salary. Lawmakers increased their base salary to $70,645 from $69,464, which took effect on July 1, 2019. Before the 2019 increase, the base salary was unchanged at $67,836 since 2008. Capitol News Illinois is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service covering state government and distributed to more than 400 newspapers statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation. [GN] INSTAGRAM: Arent Fox Attorneys Discuss Copyright Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Alberstein, Esq., Dan Jasnow, Esq., and Anthony Lupo, Esq., of Arent Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that in May 2021, two photojournalists filed a class action lawsuit against Instagram, alleging that the social media giant allowed and encouraged third parties to 'embed' images shared to the platform in violation of copyright law. The complaint alleges that Instagram "encourage[es], induc[es], and facilitate[es] third parties to commit widespread copyright infringement…by using Instagram's 'embedding' tool to display copyrighted works of Instagram users on third-party publisher websites . . . without appropriately compensating copyright holders." The complaint further alleges that Instagram's activities are part of a larger "scheme that denies the copyright owner the right to protect their copyrighted works" while simultaneously generating traffic and advertising revenue from consumers directed to Instagram by the third party embeds. According to the complaint, such activities constitute the inducement of copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement, making Instagram liable for "damages for each copyrighted work infringed by each third-party embedder." The plaintiffs, on behalf of "potential many thousands" of Instagram users, are seeking damages, disgorgement of profits derived from embeds, injunctive relief, and attorneys fees. Evolving Landscape This suit becomes another in a recent surge of cases attempting to reconcile the ever-evolving social media landscape with the well-settled parameters of copyright law. The complex, and at times inconsistent, copyright treatment of social media embeds can be largely credited to the roundabout manner in which embeds allegedly reproduce the underlying work. Unlike more straightforward instances of copyright infringement, such as copying and pasting an image for example, social media embeds instead direct users to the platform on which the underlying image is stored. Courts are split as to whether this constitutes copyright infringement as contemplated by current copyright laws. Notably, while such prior cases have historically targeted the third-party embedders, the plaintiffs here sued the social media platform directly, thereby shifting the focus from the act of embedding to the existence of the function itself. Takeaways While in the early stages, this case may signal significant changes to the social media legal landscape. As courts continue to wrestle with social media embeds and their relationship to copyright law, companies should approach social media embeds with caution and should be reminded that the ability to embed is not a blanket license in the underlying work. Companies should ensure they have the appropriate clearances to use such works, which can include seeking consent or a license to use an image for commercial purposes. [GN] JD PRODUCE: Jian Seeks Overtime Pay, Missed Wage Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Jian Qi, on her own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. JD Produce Maspeth LLC and JD Trucking Maspeth Inc., Sheng Bo Dong, Yi Feng Ye and Jessica Dong, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03211, (E.D. N.Y., June 7, 2021), seeks to recover to recover unpaid overtime wage compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and/or attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws. Jian Qi was employed by Defendants to work as a salesperson at its location at Maspeth, NY and simultaneously as a driver at its location in Bayside, NY from February 1, 2019 to November 1, 2020. Jian claims to be denied lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek and full and accurate records of hours and wages. He also claims to be denied wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Whipple Slams Carcinogen in Hair/Scalp Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Larissa Whipple, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-50226 (N.D. Ill., June 7, 2021), seeks redress for economic damages sustained resulting from failure to properly warn consumers of the risks and dangers attendant to the use of strong ingredients, including DMDM hydantoin, on their "OGX" branded shampoo and conditioner products, in violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practice Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. DMDM hydantoin, is a formaldehyde donor known to slowly leach formaldehyde when coming into contact with water. Formaldehyde is a well-known human carcinogen that can cause cancer and other harmful reactions when absorbed into skin. DMDM hydantoin has been used as a preservative in Johnson & Johnson products for well over a decade, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. SHUB LAW FIRM LLC 134 Kings Highway E, 2nd Floor Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Tel: (856) 772-7200 Fax: (856) 210-9088 Email: jshub@shublawyers.com klaukaitis@shublawyers.com - and - Andrew J. Sciolla, Esq. SCIOLLA LAW FIRM LLC Land Title Building 1910 100 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Tel: (267) 328-5245 Fax: (215) 972-1545 Email: andrew@sciollalawfirm.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Harper T. Segui, Esq. Erin Ruben, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON, LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: (919) 600-5000 Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com harper@whitfieldbryson.com eruben@whitfieldbryson.com KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Drivers File Labor Suit, Allege Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tiande Wang, Lu Yang and Ya Xu, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. Kirin Transportation Inc., Qiang Chen, Marriana Yuhua Song and Qiuxiang Shi, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-03254, (E.D. N.Y., June 8, 2021), seeks to recover lost wages, liquidated damages equal to lost wages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, injunctive relief and any such other and further legal and equitable relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York labor laws, arising from Defendants' willful, malicious and unlawful retaliation. Kirin Transportation has a contract with several senior centers in Flushing to provide transportation for seniors between their homes and the senior centers. Plaintiffs are drivers assigned to drive fixed routes each day, transporting designated senior passengers between their homes and two of the senior centers. On December 02, 2020, Tiande Wang opted into a lawsuit against Kirin Transportation Inc. seeking unpaid wages and overtime pay. Lu Yang and Ya Xu opted into the aforementioned Wage-and-Hour Action on February 22, 2021. Plaintiffs claim that they were suspended for alleged violation of company policies but allege that these were all in retaliation for the labor suit. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. Aaron Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Tel: (718) 762-1324 Fax: (718) 762-1342 Email: TroyLaw@TroyPllc.com LGI HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Construction Defect Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Miller-Still, writing for The Courier-Herald, reports that an Enumclaw home developer has been sued for allegedly violating the Consumer Protection Act. Casey Law PLLC submitted the class action lawsuit against LGI Homes, developer of the Suntop Farms community east of Enumclaw, in the King County Superior Court on May 25. According to the lawsuit, Casey Law is representing 58 plaintiffs, although a more updated complaint could name more than 65 clients, with likely more to come, said lawyer Wesley Higbee. "We doubt this is a one-off," Higbee said in an email. "From internet research and our communications from projects across the U.S., this is a pattern." The lawsuit stems from a winter storm that hit Enumclaw Feb. 13, ripping off roofing and siding from numerous homes in the Suntop Farm neighborhood. But several residents told the Courier-Herald that there was no way the storm -- which only reached up to 50 mph, according to a local weather station -- should have done so much damage to their brand-new homes. Many attempted to claim the damage through their one-year home warranty, but their claims were denied, citing "acts of God"; others, seeing their neighbors' frustration with LGI, went about their own way to pay for repairs. That's when homeowners started to believe that their homes weren't built up to snuff. One such resident was Annie Nahon, who is one of the numerous clients named in the lawsuit. After having her claim denied by LGI, Nahon hired a contractor to look at the damage to her home; she said the contractor "was shocked and horrified that my tiles were not nailed in correctly… and they're not glued down," Nahon said. "She was like, ‘your whole roof is going to have to be replaced… I'm guessing this is how they did all the other roofs. Every single roof, in this entire neighborhood, needs to be redone.'" Two other clients, Troy Runner and Seth Pohlman, also told the Courier-Herald they believed their shingles were not nailed down correctly. To bolster its claims against LGI Homes, Casey Law hired Will Martin of the Seattle-based Robson Forensic Inc., to visit the neighborhood and take some measurements of the damaged homes and study the roofing and siding of potential clients; Martin allegedly discovered shingles that were nailed down incorrectly and siding that was nailed into the drywall, rather than studs, all of which made it easier for the winter storm damage these homes. "Analysis of the construction, performed by independent construction experts retained by various insurers, identify the cause of the siding damage is one or more of the LGI Defendants' failure to ensure the siding is firmly secured into underlying building studs in compliance with building codes and/or product installation requirements and/or the building plans," the lawsuit reads. "Analysis of the construction… identify the cause of the roof damage is one of more of the LGI Defendants' failure to ensure the roof materials are firmly secured in compliance with applicable buildings codes and/or manufacturer installation requirements and/or the building plans." The lawsuit estimates repair costs per home will cost approximately $150,000. "Plaintiff's experts determine the construction defect issues identified herein are latent; they could not be observed by reasonable investigation at the time of purchase of the homes," documents continue. All in all, Casey Law alleges LGI breached its contract with homeowners, breached the warranty of habitability, and -- maybe most importantly -- violated the Consumer Protection Act. "LGI's defective construction of the homes and false representations as to the quality and services injured the Plaintiffs" and "is the direct cause of the homeowners' damages," the lawsuit reads. "Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the full costs of repair and any consequential losses arising out of or related to Defendants' violation of the Consumer Protection Act, including attorney fees and treble damages." [GN] LIMETREE BAY: Faces Fourth Class Action Over Flaring Incident ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Borns, writing for The St. John Source, reports that a National Guardsman and mothers with newborn children are among 22 named plaintiffs in a new class action lawsuit against Limetree Bay; the fourth filed against the refinery since a flaring incident sprayed oil on hundreds of downwind homes May 12. The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for property damages and medical monitoring to make sure that any subsequent illnesses that arise from refinery pollutants can be diagnosed and treated quickly down the road. Unlike the previous actions filed in the territory's courts, the June 7 lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands because most of the attorneys are on the mainland. They include The Lambert Firm and Fishman Haygood, environmental law firms with refinery experience in New Orleans, as well as St. Thomas attorney Jennifer Jones. National Guardsman Carlos Christian was one of the first Hazmat responders to arrive on the scene when a flaring incident at Limetree Bay Refinery showered oil on downwind homes for miles around -- including his home in Frederiksted. Christian alleges he was told Limetree would clean his property, but one no one did. "This case is very interesting because of the impact it has had on the island's ecosystem," attorney Hugh Lambert said. "Here you have a refinery, Hovensa, that contaminated the aquifer and maneuvered to go bankrupt to avoid responsibility, which was then recreated by a hedge fund with relaxed environmental scrutiny by the prior administration's EPA. They started up the facility without doing the minimal work that was essential for a refinery shuttered nine-plus years, and now the downwind community is suffering the consequences." The St. Croix aquifer was polluted by petroleum hydrocarbons from 300,000 barrels of petrochemicals when Hovensa owned the refinery. Today only a small percentage of the oil release, about 306,000 gallons, remains to be recovered from the groundwater beneath the refinery, according to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency status report. Still, Crucians today rely on cisterns for their drinking water, and the May 12 oil spray contaminated untold numbers as well as showering gardens, roofs and cars. Residents were offered money to pay for the cleanup themselves provided they release bodily injury and damage claims, according to the complaint as well as documents shown to the Source. Among the defendants listed were 100 "John Does" whose identities will be among the attorneys' first challenge to discover because of the convoluted and unclear number of investors behind Limetree's limited liability companies. Limetree Bay Ventures, the original operating LLC, was recently dissolved and resurrected as Limetree Bay Energy, LLC, according to Limetree spokeswoman Erica Parsons. Arclight Capital, which at first had an 80 percent majority stake, began winding down its ownership in the refinery last year and sold its remaining interest in April, according to a Reuters source familiar with the situation. And Freepoint Commodities, which formerly held a 20 percent stake, no longer holds any equity in Limetree, another knowledgeable source said. How will the responsible parties be determined for the refining accidents of the four months from Feb. 1 to the present? Freepoint, for example, was invested in Limetree Bay Terminals. "We must subpoena the information. It's called piercing the corporate veil," Lambert said. "If the terminal was getting its product from the refinery next door, for example, they were integral to one another, and we must develop the factual truth of their interdependency." A majority of plaintiffs in the new case allege pre-existing respiratory conditions that were exacerbated by successive releases of hydrogen sulfide. Limetree has denied those releases but EPA documents support them. Two of the plaintiffs are mothers with newborns. One plaintiff was allegedly hospitalized for a week. "This is not the first time that Defendant Arclight has targeted and exploited vulnerable communities of color," the complaint states, pointing to millions of dollars the firm has incurred in environmental penalties, with minorities accounting for 35 percent of those affected. It alleges that Arclight "preys on communities of color where environmental laws are underenforced . . . on the assumption that these vulnerable communities lack the resources to seek recourse for the harm caused by Arclight's exploitation." A Limetree spokeswoman did not return a request for comment by publication time. [GN] MANDARICH LAW: Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Parker -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARDEE PARKER v. MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP, Case No. 1:19-cv-06313-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered an order: -- granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment in its entirety; -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; and -- directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for defendant and close this case. The Plaintiff Chardee Parker brought this putative class action on behalf of herself and individuals similarly situated, alleging violations of various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated June 9, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cA2Ac0 at no extra charge.[CC] MARSH USA: Fischler Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Marsh USA Inc.. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Marsh USA Inc. doing business as: Trusted Pals, Case No. 1:21-cv-05160 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Marsh -- https://www.marsh.com/ -- is a Global Leader in Insurance Broking and Risk Management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com MCKINSEY & COMPANY: City of Shawnee Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as styled as City of Shawnee, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. McKinsey & Company, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-00174, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June 10, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04388-CRB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury. McKinsey & Company -- https://www.mckinsey.com/ -- is an American worldwide management consulting firm, founded in 1926 by University of Chicago professor James O. McKinsey, that advises on strategic management to corporations, governments, and other organizations.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley C. West, Esq. Terry W. West, Esq. THE WEST LAW FIRM 124 W Highland St Shawnee, OK 74801 Phone: (405) 275-0040 Fax: (405) 275-0052 Email: brad@thewestlawfirm.com terry@thewestlawfirm.com - and - Curtis N. Bruehl, Esq. THE BRUEHL LAW FIRM PLLC 14005 N Eastern Ave Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 657-1221 Fax: (405) 509-6268 Email: cbruehl@bruehllaw.com - and - Harrison C. Lujan, Esq. James D. Sill, Esq. FULMER SILL PLLC 1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 510-0077 Fax: (405) 510-0077 Email: hlujan@fulmersill.com jsill@fulmersill.com - and - Matthew J. Sill, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP 14005 N Eastern Ave Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (405) 509-6300 Fax: (405) 509-6268 Email: Matt@sill-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. Curran, Esq. Kyle D. Evans, Esq. Robert G. McCampbell, Esq. GABLE & GOTWALS-OKC 211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-5500 Fax: (405) 235-2875 Email: jcurran@gablelaw.com kevans@gablelaw.com rmccampbell@gablelaw.com METHOD PRODUCTS: Angeles Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Method Products, PBC. The case is styled as Jenisa Angeles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Method Products, PBC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05185 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Method Products, PBC -- https://methodhome.com/ -- is a company that produces nontoxic and biodegradable cleaning products, including home cleaners, hand soap, and laundry detergent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC 285 Passaic Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Email: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: J&M Plastic Sues Over Unlawful Business Acts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kate Bertrand Connolly, writing for Plastics Today, reports that J&M Plastics, based northeast of Dallas in Royse City, TX, has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Des Moines–based electricity supplier MidAmerican Energy Services. J&M Plastics alleges the supplier improperly charged commercial, fixed-rate plan customers line-item fees for service provided during the winter storm that slammed Texas in February 2021. J&M Plastics is an injection molder that manufactures flower pots, coat hangers, dog bowls, and other products using recycled plastics. MidAmerican is a Berkshire Hathaway Energy company serving a total of 60,000 customers, including about 15,000 in Texas. Filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, J&M Plastics, Inc. v. MidAmerican Energy Services (Case No.2:21-cv-00206) states that J&M -- a fixed-rate customer -- received a statement from MidAmerican in April 2021 that included eight unauthorized line-item charges. These charges, for Supplemental Ancillary Services, were assessed during the week of the brutal Texas storm and came to nearly $54,000 -- more than three times the company's typical monthly bill. J&M heated its 55,000-square-foot facility during the storm to prevent frozen pipes, but the plant was not operating. According to MidAmerican's service agreement, its fixed-price plan includes "costs associated with line loss . . . all charges assessed by ERCOT . . . and other costs required to facilitate delivery of electricity to Customer's Delivery Points." ERCOT is the Electric Reliability Council of Texas. The lawsuit alleges that MidAmerican ignored those terms and informed customers that "MidAmerican Energy Services will not increase the energy component of your bill; however, non-energy costs, such as ancillary charges billed by ERCOT and your local utility, are not fixed and are passed through on your bill." J&M, the lead plaintiff, expects other affected companies to join the class action lawsuit. "We are standing up for all businesses that are being taken advantage of by MidAmerican. Many of these companies and employees are struggling to recover from the pandemic, and these kinds of charges only make that recovery more difficult. We plan on others joining in this fight and getting these fees removed," Shayna Levine, President of J&M Plastics, told PlasticsToday. "MidAmerican has already acknowledged that it can't pass through these same costs to their residential and small business customers, because of the Public Utility Commission's consumer protection regulations. But the company's still trying to unlawfully use a statewide disaster to take advantage of and price-gouge thousands of larger commercial customers," said Derek Potts, attorney and founding Partner of the Houston-based Potts Law Firm, in a prepared statement. "They can't justify passing through these costs when J&M and other customers agreed to a fixed-price electricity plan, which specifically includes any ancillary and ERCOT-assessed charges," Potts added. The lawsuit's allegations include violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and claims for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation. [GN] MUD WTR: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mud Wtr, Inc. The case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Mud Wtr, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05150 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. MUD\WTR -- https://mudwtr.com/ -- is a coffee alternative consisting of organic ingredients lauded by cultures old and young for their health and performance benefits.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Phone: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: joseph@cml.legal NEC NETWORKS: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info, Trujillo Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DAISY TRUJILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEC NETWORKS, LLC D/B/A CAPTURERX, and RITE AID CORP., Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-00523 (W.D. Tex., June 2, 2021) arises from the Defendants' failure to adequately secure and safeguard electronically stored, personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) that Defendants shared between themselves, including, without limitation, full names, birthdates, and prescription information. On or before February 11, 2021, Defendant CaptureRx learned that an unauthorized actor breached its system and accessed the electronic files containing the PII and PHI of Defendant Rite Aid's customers, including Plaintiff's and Class Members' data. Plaintiff and Class Members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, which is heightened here by the loss of their birthdates and specific medical treatment information in the form of prescription information, the suit says. Plaintiff and Class Members have allegedly suffered injury as a result of Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: (i) lost or diminished value of PII and PHI; (ii) out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft and/or unauthorized use of their PII and PHI; (iii) lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the data breach, including but not limited to lost time, and significantly (iv) the continued and certainly an increased risk to their PII and PHI, which: (a) remains unencrypted and available for unauthorized third parties to access and abuse; and (b) may remain backed up in Defendants' possession and is subject to further unauthorized disclosures so long as Defendants fail to undertake appropriate and adequate measures to protect the PII and PHI. CaptureRx is a specialty pharmacy benefits manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - M. Anderson Berry, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com - and - Rachele R. Byrd, Esq. Marisa C. Livesay, Esq. Brittany N. Dejong, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 750 B Street, Suite 1820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: byrd@whafh.com livesay@whafh.com dejong@whafh.com NESTLE WATERS: Underpays Route Drivers, Mittler Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS MITTLER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 607250/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 9, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged failure to pay proper overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a route driver beginning in or about November 2015 at the Defendant's storage warehouse in Syosset, New York. The Plaintiff claims that he was not paid for all hours he worked despite approximately 47-50 hours per week. Instead of paying him 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, the Defendant paid him a salary only based off of a 40 hours week. Moreover, the Defendant willfully and intentionally failed to provide him with a 30-minute noon-time lunch break and all other required breaks, and to compensate him for any of his hours worked on mandatory Saturday shifts, three times a year in violation of NYLL, says the suit. Nestle Water North America, Inc. is a Healthy Hydration company dedicated to enhancing quality of life and contributing to a healthier future. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Merrill, Esq. JOSEF TIMLICHMAN LAW PLLC 11835 Queens Blvd., Suite 1205 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (347) 306-6396 E-mail: amerrill@lawnowfl.com NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Parisi Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is styled as Tommy Parisi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-04484 (N.D. Cal., June 10, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. The Northstar Companies -- https://www.gotonls.com/ -- provides a full-service receivables debt collection solution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com NYC MEDICAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Lawrence FLSA-NYLL Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants NYC Medical Practice, P.C. and Sergey Voskin, M.D. filed an appeal from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 20, 2021, entered in the lawsuit entitled KEYLEE LAWRENCE, COURTNEY BRACCIA, BRIA WARNER, and WENDY ROSADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NYC MEDICAL PRACTICE, P.C. d/b/a Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, and SERGEY VOSKIN, M.D., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-8649, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 2, 2021, Judge Gregory H. Woods of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part the Plaintiffs' motions to certify a collective action. The Plaintiffs have filed motions asking the Court to certify a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) to pursue their Fair Labor Standards Act claims and a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to pursue their New York Labor Law claims. In 2018, four employees of a New York plastic surgery practice filed suit against their employer, alleging that it had violated various provisions of the FLSA and NYLL. In 2018, the Plaintiffs worked for NYC Medical. NYC Medica conducts business under the name Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery. Goals' sole shareholder is physician Sergey Voskin. Lawrence and Warner worked as receptionists. Braccia and Rosado were patient coordinators. Goals is in the business of performing cosmetic plastic surgery, body contouring, anti-aging techniques, facial rejuvenation processes, and other aesthetic procedures. On Sept. 25, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a hybrid putative class and collective action under the FLSA and the NYLL on behalf of themselves and a purported collective and class of all other similarly situated individuals. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by (i) failing to compensate them for all hours worked each work week; (ii) requiring the Plaintiffs to submit false time records that understated the true number of hours that they worked; (iii) failing to properly compensate them for all hours worked in a work week in excess of 40; and (iv) failing to compensate them at a rate of 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours in a workweek in excess of 40. The Plaintiffs also allege additional violations of the NYLL. The Defendants now seek a review of Judge Woods's June 2 Order Class Certification order. The appellate case is captioned as Lawrence v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C., Case No. 21-1426, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on June 4, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Appellants NYC Medical Practice, P.C., DBA Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery; and Sergey Voskin, M.D. are represented by: Joshua M. Lurie, Esq. LURIE STRUPINSKY, LLP 15 Warren Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 518-9999 E-mail: jmlurie@luriestrupinsky.com Plaintiffs-Appellees Wendy Rosado, Keylee Lawrence, Courtney Braccia, and Summer Robbins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shelly Leonard, Esq. BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP, LLC 23 Green Street Huntington, NY 11743 Telephone: (631) 458-1010 E-mail: sleonard@blauleonardlaw.com OPEN KITCHEN: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Chumil Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTIN PEREBAL CHUMIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPEN KITCHEN 33, LLC d/b/a OPEN KITCHEN and JOHN DOE a/k/a JASI, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05085 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought against the Defendants to recover damages for its alleged egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants from in or around October 2017 until in or around March 2020 as a dishwasher worker and to perform other miscellaneous duties. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 54 or more hours per week during his employment with the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not compensate him for the overtime hours he worked at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to keep accurate payroll records and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, the suit alleges. Open Kitchen 33, LLC d/b/a Open Kitchen operates a restaurant owned by John Doe a/k/a Jason, who has power over personnel and payroll decisions, and to hire and fire employees. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9598 PFIZER CANADA: Supreme Court Certifies Alesse Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Hainsworth, writing for CoastReporter, reports that B.C. Supreme Court June 8 certified a class action suit against pharmaceutical giants Pfizer Canada and Wyeth Canada filed by two plaintiffs who claim they became pregnant while taking the Alesse oral contraceptive. Taylor Janet MacKinnon and Alysa McIntosh assert there were manufacturing defects in the Alesse 21 or Alesse 28. They filed the class action suit on behalf of people who used the drugs between Jan. 1, 2017, and April 30, 2019. Justice Karen Horsman said in her class certification ruling that the focus of the plaintiffs' case is a December 2017 Health Canada advisory warning consumers that complaints had been received about undersized and broken pills in Alesse packages. "Broken or smaller-than-normal birth control pills may deliver a smaller dose of the active drug ingredient, which could reduce its effectiveness in preventing pregnancy," the advisory said. The plaintiffs asserted testing of Alesse pills found normal sized pills sold during the class period contained a lower quantity of estrogen than Alesse's product information suggested was necessary for the pills to be effective in preventing pregnancy. The plaintiffs allege Pfizer and Wyeth negligently failed to take reasonable steps to ensure Alesse was safe and effective. The defendants, however, said the plaintiffs have not established any of the requirements for certification. The judge disagreed and defined the class as all persons resident in Canada who were prescribed and took Alesse 21 or Alesse 28 between Jan. 1, 2017, and April 30, 2019. The allegations have yet to be tested in court. [GN] PHILLY TILE: Ponce Slams Misclassification, Seeks OT, Last Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Francisco Zelaya Ponce and Juan Carlos Castillo, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Philly Tile, Inc. and Kyle Perlman, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-02596, (E.D. Pa., June 8, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, unlawfully withheld wages, statutory penalties and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Philly Tile employed Ponce and Castillo as general laborers for its commercial and residential tile installation and repair business. It allegedly misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors thus denying them overtime compensation despite working approximately 60 hours per workweek. Both Plaintiffs were terminated but have yet to receive their final pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 273-1054 Fax: (215) 525-0210 Email: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com PJ BERNSTEIN DELI: Galindo Seeks Overtime Pay, Slams Tip Credit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Valencia Galindo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Somich Deli Inc., Restaurant Services NYC LLC, PJS Delikatesan LLC, PJ Bernstein Deli Corp., Alex Slobodski, Leonid Vaynberg, Steven Slobodski and Clarisa Slobodski, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05030 (S.D. N.Y., June 7, 2021), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants own, operate, or control a deli in New York under the name "PJ Bernstein Deli" where Galindo was employed as a laborer, a stock boy, dishwasher and delivery worker. He claims to have generally worked in excess of 40 hours a week without overtime for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and denied spread-of-hours premium for workdays exceeding 10 hours. Defendants claimed tip credit for all hours worked despite requiring Plaintiff to work non-tipped duties for hours exceeding 20% of the total hours worked each workweek. Plaintiff also says he never received wage statements, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com PLUTOS SAMA: Wallis Sues Over Unlawful Business Practices --------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER WALLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLUTOS SAMA HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ANDREW CORCORAN, an individual; MICHAEL KEADJIAN, an individual; MARK WOODWARD, an individual; SARINA BROWNDORF, an individual; INGA SCHNEIDER, an individual; MELVIN BROWNDORF, an individual; BONNIE BROWNDORF, an individual; JACOB BROWNDORF, an individual; GARO KEADJIAN, an individual; PATRICK FARENGA, an individual; BRITTNEY ROWLAND, an individual; DISTRESSED CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; DCM-P1, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P2, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P3, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P4, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P5, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P6, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P7, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P8, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DCM-P9, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; WCCB LAW, LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership; WB LAW, LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership; KCB LAW GROUP, LLP, a New York Limited Liability Partnership; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:21-cv-00986 (C.D. Cal., June 2, 2021) is a federal class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons, other than Defendants, whose earnings were illegally withheld, converted, misappropriated or otherwise mismanaged while working for one or more of the Entity Defendants and suffered financial damages as a result of the alleged actions. In addition to illegally withholding several million dollars in earnings that include wages, employment pension plans and benefits, commissions, and health benefits from the Plaintiff and other members of the Class, Defendants fraudulently reported to the Internal Revenue Service that such earnings were paid to the Plaintiff and other Class members, asserts the complaint. As a result, PSH and the Entity Defendants received payroll deductions by way of these fraudulent claims and the Plaintiff and other members of the Class were assigned tax liability by the IRS for earnings they never received. The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and other relief against Defendants for the alleged wrongful and collusive business practices perpetrated through a pattern of racketeering activity. The Plaintiff further seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violation of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plutos Sama Holdings, Inc. is a private equity company in the business of taking control positions in domestic and international distressed and contentious residential and commercial real estate ventures, micro-lending, securitizations, law firms, restaurants, mortgage servicing platforms, and eSports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Y. Lazo, Esq. K&L LAW GROUP, P.C. 2646 Dupont Drive, Suite 60340 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 216-4000 Facsimile: (800) 596-0370 PRETIUM RESOURCES: Ontario Court Tosses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Sjolin, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision of Wong v. Pretium Resources, 2021 ONSC 54, Justice Belobaba dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that there had been no misrepresentation under the secondary market liability provisions of Part XXIII.I of the Ontario Securities Act. The merits decision is the first of its kind and serves as a reminder that even after succeeding on a motion for leave to proceed on a "reasonable possibility" standard, the "balance of probabilities" hurdle is more demanding and where the decision could be challenged. What you need to know The plaintiff, David Wong, brought a claim on behalf of himself and other similarly situated shareholders for losses allegedly sustained when they purchased shares in the defendant mining company, Pretium Resources Inc. (Pretium). The essence of the plaintiff's claim was that the share price of Pretium plummeted due to the company's failure to disclose the negative opinions of one of its mining consultants regarding the validity of mineral resources in the mine, amounting to an omission of a material fact. The plaintiff argued that this omission was actionable as a misrepresentation under Part XXIII.I of the Ontario Securities Act (OSA). Pretium's position was that the defendant acted in the proper manner throughout the relevant time. The Pretium team decided there was no obligation to disclose the consultant's concerns because they were premature and unreliable, based only on sample data, and being unreliable, were not material. As it turned out, after more accurate and reliable mill testing, the validity of mineral resources was confirmed. History of the case In 2017, the plaintiff sought leave under s. 138.8 of OSA to commence an action under s. 138.3 of the OSA for secondary market misrepresentations. Justice Belobaba granted leave based on the "reasonable possibility" test, that is, that the plaintiff had established a reasonable possibility of success at trial. The core of Justice Belobaba's conclusion was by any objective measure, reasonable investors would have considered it material that two respected mining consultancies retained by Pretium fundamentally disagreed as to whether there were valid mineral resources in the mine at issue. The action was subsequently certified on consent as a class proceeding. In December 2020, the parties brought cross-motions for summary judgment on the certified common issues. The two most important common issues were: -- whether Pretium released core documents between July 23 and October 9, 2013 that contained misrepresentations; and -- whether the defendants were relieved of liability under the reasonable investigation defence. Pretium adduced additional evidence Both parties along with Justice Belobaba agreed the certified common issues could be decided by way of summary judgment. The majority of the evidence was documentary in nature, and while there were affidavits and cross-examination transcripts, there were no credibility issues. Justice Belobaba found that there were no genuine issues requiring a trial. In support of their motion, Pretium filed new affidavits from the individuals who were the senior Pretium executives at the relevant time as well as experienced geologists or geological engineers. The affiants restated and credibly expanded on what was said at the leave motion. This evidence was reinforced by additional evidence filed by three independent witnesses, who were involved in sampling the mines at issue. The plaintiff led evidence from mining expert who was well credentialed, but who had no involvement in the relevant events. Justice Belobaba found that much of the evidence was less than compelling and should be given little weight. Interestingly, the plaintiff did not provide an affidavit in support of the motion. The transcript from the plaintiff's examination revealed that he was not aware of any of the impugned documents containing the alleged misrepresentations; he did not rely on them and did not know he had a cause of action until he met with class counsel. Summary judgment motions The defendants' additional evidence on the summary judgment motion was sufficient to persuade the Court that the class action must be dismissed. Justice Belobaba was obliged to consider all of the evidence using the "balance of probabilities" standard. His Honour found on a preponderance of the evidence that the consultant's "so-called concerns or opinions were not only unsolicited but inexpert, premature and unreliable."3 Fundamentally, His Honour held: "[t]he key determinant is my finding on a balance of probabilities that there was no omission of any material fact – that the defendants were not obliged to disclose information that they reasonably and objectively believed was premature, unreliable and incorrect, indeed 'dead wrong'."4 In any event, the defendants had satisfied the "reasonable investigation" defence under s. 138.4(6) of the OSA, which provides that a person or company is not liable under s. 138.3 if that person or company shows: It conducted or caused to be conducted a reasonable investigation before the alleged misrepresentation was released; and At the time of the alleged misrepresentation's release, it had no reasonable grounds to believe that the document that was released to the public contained the misrepresentation. The additional evidence introduced by the defendants confirmed that they had conducted a reasonable investigation into the reliability of the consultant's concerns, and added an important objective dimension to Pretium's subjective perspective of why the consultant's data was "inherently unreliable". Key takeaways Justice Belobaba's decision sets an important precedent as it highlights the gap between what is required for a plaintiff to obtain leave to proceed and actual success on the merits on a balance of probabilities. As Justice Belobaba said, the leave motion is merely a "speed bump, [and] is not the Matterhorn." The Court's guidance on secondary market misrepresentations and what a court will consider to be a material fact when determining whether a misrepresentation has occurred is also a welcome addition to this area of law. Finally, the decision serves as a stark reminder to class counsel that they should "put their best foot forward" on summary judgment motions, particularly when it comes to affidavit evidence. In this case, Justice Belobaba found that the plaintiff's evidence to be lacking and that actual evidence from the consultant's principals "may have resulted in a more balanced assessment of its expertise in mineral resource estimation . . . [h]owever, class counsel chose not to file such evidence and relied almost exclusively on one expert's report, whose contribution to the issues in play was of minimal value at best." [GN] PRIME FOOD: Fails to Pay Warehouse Workers' OT, Martinez Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTIAN A. MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME FOOD DISTRIBUTOR, INC., and JOSEPH CASTELLAN, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03259 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021) seeks to recover damages and other relief as the Court may deem right and just pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from in or around May 2020 until in or around December 2020 to perform primary duties as a warehouse worker, stock-picker, produce organizer, and other miscellaneous duties. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay despite working approximately 84 hours or more hours per week throughout his employment with the Defendant. Additionally, the Defendant failed to keep accurate payroll records, and to post notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required by both the FLSA and NYLL, says the suit. Prime Food Distributor, Inc. manufactures meats. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Tel: (718) 263-9598 PROVENTION BIO: Bragar Eagel & Squire Reminds of July 20 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 Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB), Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG), and Virgin Galactic, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE). 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. Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: PRVB) Class Period: November 2, 2020 to April 8, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021 On April 8, 2021, Provention Bio issued a press release "announc[ing] that the Company received a notification on April 2, 2021 from the [FDA], stating that, as part of its ongoing review of the Company's [BLA] for teplizumab for the delay or prevention of clinical [T1D], the FDA has identified deficiencies that preclude discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments at this time." On this news, Provention's stock price fell $1.73 per share, or 17.78%, to close at $8.00 per share on April 9, 2021. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Provention Bio's teplizumab BLA was deficient in its submitted form and would require additional data to secure FDA approval; (ii) accordingly, Provention Bio's teplizumab BLA lacked the evidentiary support Provention Bio had led investors to believe it possessed; (iii) Provention Bio had thus overstated the teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, Provention Bio's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. For more information on the Provention Bio class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/PRVB Washington Prime Group, Inc. (NYSE: WPG) Class Period: November 5, 2020 to March 4, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 23, 2021 On February 16, 2021, WPG disclosed that its operating partnership, Washington Prime Group, L.P. ("WPG L.P."), had "elected to withhold an interest payment of $23.2 million due on February 15, 2021 with respect to WPG L.P.'s outstanding Senior Notes due 2024," and that "WPG L.P. has a 30-day grace period to make the interest payment before such non-payment constitutes an ‘event of default.'" The Company further advised that, in an event of default, certain counterparties to the senior notes "could accelerate the outstanding indebtedness due . . . making such indebtedness due and payable, which would result in a cross-default with respect to some of WPG L.P.'s or the Company's other indebtedness." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.59, or 38%, to close at $7.49 per share on February 16, 2021, on unusually heavy volume. Then, on March 4, 2021, Bloomberg reported that WPG "is preparing a potential bankruptcy filing as time runs out to avert default after it skipped an interest payment on its debt, according to people with knowledge of the plans." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.77, or 60%, to close at $2.51 per share on March 4, 2021, on unusually heavy volume. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that WPG's financial condition was deteriorating substantially; (2) that, as a result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's ability to meet its capital structure obligations as they became due; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. For more information on the Washington Prime Group class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/WPG Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: SPCE) Class Period: October 26, 2020 to April 30, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 27, 2021 On October 25, 2019, post-market, Virgin Galactic was formed via a business combination between Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. ("SCH"), a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"), and the Company's then-private predecessor ("Legacy Virgin Galactic"), after which SCH changed its name to "Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc." and its ticker symbol to "SPCE" (the "Business Combination"). On April 12, 2021, the SEC issued guidance advising that SPAC warrants, which are instruments that allow investors to buy additional shares at a fixed price, may need to be classified as liabilities rather than equity for many SPAC transactions, which had previously been accounted for as equity in these deals. 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) for accounting purposes, SCH's warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the Business Combination; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 30, 3021, post-market, Virgin Galactic announced "that it has rescheduled the reporting of its financial results for the first quarter 2021 to following the close of the U.S. markets on Monday, May 10, 2021. Virgin Galactic will now host a conference call to discuss the results and provide a business update that day at 2:00 p.m., Pacific Time (5:00 p.m., Eastern Time). The Company is rescheduling its reporting due to the recent statement issued by the [SEC] on April 12, 2021 relating to the accounting treatment of warrants issued by special purpose acquisition companies (the ‘SEC Statement')." The press release further advised that "following its review of the SEC Statement and consulting with its advisors, the Company will restate its consolidated financial statements included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2020. The restatement is due solely to the accounting treatment for the warrants of Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp. that were outstanding at the time of the Company's business combination on October 25, 2019. The Company expects to file the restated financials prior to the new conference call date and estimates that it will recognize incremental non-operating, non-cash expense for each of the fiscal years ended December 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019." On this news, Virgin Galactic's stock price fell $2.01 per share, or 9.07%, to close at $20.14 per share on May 3, 2021. For more information on the Virgin Galactic class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/SPCE 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] PURECYCLE TECH: Glancy Prongay Reminds of July 12 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 12, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your PureCycle 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/purecycle-technologies-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 May 6, 2021, before the market opened, Hindenburg Research issued a report alleging that PureCycle is "another quintessential example of how executives and SPAC sponsors enrich themselves while hoisting unproven technology and ridiculous financial projections onto the public markets, leaving retail investors to face the ultimate consequences." Hindenburg explained that it spoke with "multiple former employees" of earlier companies that PureCycle's CEO and other associated executives took public before PureCycle, "who said that PureCycle's executives based their financial projections on ‘wild… guessing,' brought companies public far too early, and had deceived investors." The report also noted Hindenburg was "unable to find a single peer reviewed study in any scholarly journal citing or reviewing PureCycle's licensed process," and that Hindenburg spoke to a "30-year expert on polymers" who "referred to the company's flammable pressurized process as a ‘bomb' and warned about the company forging ahead to commercial scale despite having issues at a lab scale." On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell $9.76, or 40%, to close at $14.83, on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the management team bringing PureCycle public had previously brought six other failed business public only to have each implode thereafter; (2) the management team bringing PureCycle public had characterized rank speculation as financial projections to investors in the past; (3) the primary motivation of the management team bringing PureCycle public was to complete any transaction, good or bad, to obtain tens of millions of dollars in cash and tradable shares; (4) PureCycle faces higher competition for high quality feedstock than it has led investors to believe, materially undermining the management team's financial projections; (5) PureCycle's patent is nowhere as cogent or valuable as it has led investors to believe, and the technology underlying its business operations is unproven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (6) in reality, PureCycle's flammable pressurized process is not yet functional, especially at scale, and is dangerous; (7) PureCycle purports to be advancing to commercial production scale despite still having operational issues at a lab scale; and (8) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 12, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com [GN] PURECYCLE TECH: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of July 12 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT) ("PureCycle") f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ("Roth Acquisition") (NASDAQ: ROCH) and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws. If you purchased PureCycle securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021 (the "Class Period"), and have suffered a loss, you are encouraged to contact Jonathan Zimmerman for additional information at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. PureCycle commercializes a purification recycling technology, originally developed by The Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter & Gamble"), for restoring waste polypropylene into resin with near-virgin characteristics. Roth Acquisition was organized as a special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the PureCycle made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble was not proven and presented serious issues even at lab scale; (2) the challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology were significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections were baseless; and (4) as a result, PureCycle's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 6, 2021, before the market opened, the stock research firm Hindenburg Research published a detailed report, supported by multiple former employees and industry experts. The report revealed that the management team had, among other things, based their financial projections on "wild guessing," sought to generate ~$90 million in cash flow and tradeable shares before the company created any revenue itself, and had exaggerated the merits of its patent that actually a "‘regurgitation' of prior art." On this news, PureCycle's stock price fell from a May 5, 2021 closing price of $24.59 per share to a May 6, 2021 closing price of $14.83, a one-day drop of approximately 40%. What You Can Do If you purchased PureCycle securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. The lead plaintiff deadline is July 12, 2021. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. Contacts: Jonathan Zimmerman Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP (888) 398-9312 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN] PURECYCLE TECH: Thornton Law Firm Reminds of July 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of PureCycle (NASDAQ:PCT) or Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ('ROCH') between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive. The case is currently in the lead plaintiff stage. Investors may contact the Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle for more information. Investors may also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle The case alleges that PureCycle and its senior executives made misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (i) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter & Gamble is not proven and presents serious issues even at lab scale; (ii) the challenges posed by the availability and competition for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed technology are significant; and (iii) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless. Interested PureCycle investors have until July 12, 2021 to retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a lead plaintiff. FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. CONTACT: Thornton Law Firm LLP 1 Lincoln Street State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 www.tenlaw.com/cases/PureCycle [GN] QC SUPPLY: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Quezada Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QC SUPPLY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05103 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021) alleges the Defendant of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. The Plaintiff claims that during his most recent visit to the Defendant's website, www.qcsupply.com, in May 2021 to browse and potentially make a purchase, he has encountered multiple access barriers which denied him a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's website purportedly lacked of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation, the suit says. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination dues to its failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 which would provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the website. QC Supply, LLC is an industrial and farm supply company that owns and operates the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com QUALITY CARRIERS: Salter Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Clayton Salter filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled CLAYTON SALTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUALITY CARRIERS INC., an Illinois Corporation; et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00479-JFW-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case challenges an employer's misclassification of employees as independent contractors. The employer in this case, a trucking company named Quality Carriers, initially classified its truck drivers as employees. To save money, however, Quality Carriers started classifying some of its drivers as independent contractors instead. The drivers' jobs stayed much the same. But their wages changed significantly: Once the drivers were reclassified, the company started passing along its business expenses to the drivers in violation of California's wage-and-hour laws, asserts the complaint. The misclassified workers, represented by one of the drivers, Clayton Salter, sued Quality Carriers to recover lost wages. All of the drivers' claims flow from the same theory of liability -- that Quality illegally classified them as independent contractors, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated April 9, 2021, denying his motion for class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) consisting of: "All current and former drivers of the defendants who were domiciled at the defendants' California terminals and were classified as independent contractors and drove under the defendants' authority within four years prior to, and up until the resolution of, this lawsuit." The appellate case is captioned as Clayton Salter v. Quality Carriers, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-55593, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 7, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant Clayton Salter Mediation Questionnaire was due on June 14, 2021; -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 7, 2021; -- Transcript is due on August 6, 2021; -- Appellant Clayton Salter opening brief is due on September 15, 2021; -- Appellees Quality Carriers, Inc. and Quality Distribution, Inc. answering brief is due on October 15, 2021; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner CLAYTON SALTER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Daniel Joseph Bass, Esq. Taras Kick, Esq. THE KICK LAW FIRM 815 Moraga Drive Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310) 395-2988 E-mail: daniel@kicklawfirm.com taras@kicklawfirm.com - and - Jennifer D. Bennett, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 573-0336 E-mail: jennifer@guptawessler.com - and - Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER PLLC 1900 L Street, NW, Suite 312 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (607) 316-1499 E-mail: matt@guptawessler.com Defendants-Respondents QUALITY CARRIERS, INC., an Illinois Corporation, and QUALITY DISTRIBUTION, INC., a Florida Corporation, are represented by: Christopher James Eckhart, Esq. Elizabeth Ashley Paynter, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, P.C. 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 637-1777 E-mail: ceckhart@scopelitis.com apaynter@scopelitis.com - and - Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr., Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON & FEARY, LLP 2 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 795-4700 E-mail: cmcnatt@scopelitis.com REKOR SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Investigates Securities Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investor rights law firm, continues its investigation on behalf of Rekor Systems, Inc. ("Rekor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REKR) investors concerning the Company and its officers' possible violations of the federal securities laws. If you suffered a loss on your Rekor 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/rekor-systems-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On May 26, 2021, Western Edge published a report entitled "Rekor Systems: Lackluster Growth Runway and Exaggerated Insurance Scheme Raise Substantial Downside Risk," alleging, among other things, that the Company's "realized results suggest management's potential revenue guidance could be overstated by up to 80%." The same day, Mariner Research Group published a report entitled "REKR - Government documents do not support investor expectations." According to the report, "government documentation . . . shows that REKR's revenue opportunities are likely a fraction of what investors expect." For example, "Oklahoma government budgets imply that REKR's much vaunted UVED program is a sub $2MM revenue opportunity--almost 96% less than the > $40MM in revenue intimated by Rekor's CEO." On this news, Rekor's stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 3.93%, to close at $10.77 per share on May 26, 2021. Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding Rekor should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com. About GPM Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM's nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM's lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM's attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM's past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron's, Investor's Business Daily, Forbes, and Money. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN] RLX TECHNOLOGY: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a securities class action lawsuit against RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) ("RLX" or the "Company"), its U.S. representatives, certain RLX directors and officers and the underwriters of RLX's January 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations of §§11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §§77k, 77l(a)(2), and 77o. If you purchased RLX American Depository Shares ("ADS") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about January 22, 2021, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 for more information. RLX purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China." According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, the registration statement and prospectus used to effectuate the Company's IPO misstated and/or omitted facts concerning the Company's then-existing exposure to China's ongoing campaign to establish a national standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring them into line with ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's reported financials were not nearly as robust as the offering materials projected, nor were they indicative of future results. As a result, investors purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated prices. As the truth about RLX's financials and its regulatory exposure reached the market, the value of the Company's shares declined dramatically. By the commencement of the action, RLX's shares traded as low as $7.89 per ADS, or over 34% below the $12 IPO price. Lead Plaintiff Deadline The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is Monday August 9, 2021. Any member of the proposed Class may seek to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. What You Can Do If you purchased RLX ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO, or if you have questions about this notice or your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Jonathan Zimmerman at (888) 398-9312 or jzimmerman@scott-scott.com. About Scott+Scott Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major securities, antitrust, and consumer rights actions throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds, foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide with offices in New York, London, Amsterdam, Connecticut, California, Virginia, and Ohio. This may be considered Attorney Advertising. Contacts: Jonathan Zimmerman Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP 230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10169-1820 (888) 398-9312 jzimmerman@scott-scott.com [GN] SANTANDER CONSUMER: Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $550 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- WTHI reports that thousands of Hoosiers will receive relief in a settlement with a sub-prime auto financing company. Thirty-three states took part in a lawsuit against Santander Consumer USA Inc. The lawsuit alleged the company violated consumer protection laws. Specifically, Santander made auto loans accessible to disadvantaged borrowers who had a high probability of default. The total amount of the settlement is $550 million. In Indiana. more than 5,000 people will receive a $261 check. Fifteen-hundred Indiana residents also had their loans waived or forgiven. [GN] SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Brown Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- HADASSAH BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECTQUITE INSURANCE SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01158 (N.D. Ohio, June 9, 2021) brings this class action complaint against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant transmitted a prerecorded voice message to his cellular telephone number ending in 5288 in an attempt to promote and advertise its services. The Plaintiff asserts that at no point in time did she provide the Defendant with her express written consent to be contacted for marketing purposes via prerecorded message. Moreover, the Defendant allegedly caused similar unsolicited prerecorded messages to be sent to individuals which caused them and the Plaintiff harm in the form of invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, inconvenience and disruption to their daily life. On behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all unsolicited call activity without obtaining consent first, and other further relief as the Court deems necessary. Selectquote Insurance Services offers insurance services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tel: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com SKILLZ INC: Hagens Berman Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman urges Skillz Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) investors with significant losses to submit your losses now. A securities fraud class action is pending and certain investors may have valuable claims. Class Period: Dec. 16, 2020 - Apr. 19, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 7, 2021 Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/SKLZ Contact An Attorney Now: SKLZ@hbsslaw.com 844-916-0895 Skillz, Inc. (NYSE: SKLZ) Securities Fraud Class Action: In past months, Skillz and senior management repeatedly touted the company's revenue growth and projections to support its valuation. The complaint alleges Defendants misled investors with these and other statements because they concealed that (1) three of the company's games responsible for a majority of Skillz's revenues had substantially declined and (2) the company's revenue recognition policy misrepresented the company's actual financial condition. Defendants' statements were first brought into serious question on Mar. 8, 2021, when analyst Wolfpack Research published a scathing report, accusing Skillz of concealing that revenues from three games responsible for 88% of Skillz's total revenues (Blitz, Solitaire Cube, Blackout Bingo) substantially declined and effectively gutted the company's growth projections. Next, on Apr. 18, 2021, Eagle Eye Research published a report claiming Skillz's revenue recognition practices were "like round-tripping where the company is effectively giving its customers money to spend on SKLZ and recognizing revenue from it, i.e. generating no net economic profits." Eagle Eye concluded "that true cash revenue is less than ½ of what management portrays to investors." These events sent the price of Skillz shares sharply lower. "We're focused on investors' losses and proving Skillz engaged in fraudulent accounting and financial reporting," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation. If you are a Skillz investor and have significant losses, or have knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, click here to discuss your legal rights with Hagens Berman. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Skillz should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new 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 Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email SKLZ@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman is a national law firm with eight offices in eight cities around the country and over eighty attorneys. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes is located at hbsslaw.com. [GN] TRAVELPARK LLC: Quezada Sues Over Website Inaccessibility to Blind ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE QUEZADA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVELPARK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05105-ER (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant for its alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.travelcar.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by blind or visually-impaired people. As a result, when he visited the Defendant's website in May 2021 to browse and potentially make a purchase, he was denied a user experience similar to that of a sighted individual. The Defendant's website has multiple access barriers which effectively barred him from being able to enjoy he privileges and benefits of the Defendant's public accommodation, the suit says. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination dues to its failure to comply with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines which would provide him and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website. Travelpark LLC is an airport parking and car rental company that owns and operates the website. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC 10826 64th Avenue, Second Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Tel: (929) 324-0717 E-mail: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com TREVENA INC: August 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DR. WILLIAM TOMASZEWSKI, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similar Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TREVENA, INC., MAXINE GOWEN, and DAVID SOERGEL, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-4378-CMR SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who, during the period between May 2, 2016, and October 8, 2018, inclusive, purchased or otherwise acquired Trevena, Inc. common stock and were injured thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Settlement Class, have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") for $8,500,000 in cash that, if approved, would resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). Defendants have denied the claims asserted against them and have agreed to the Settlement solely to eliminate the burden and expense of continued litigation. YOU ARE HEREBY FURTHER NOTIFIED that the Action has been preliminarily certified as a class action and that, pursuant to an Order of the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") dated May 3, 2021, a hearing will be held on August 2, 2021, at 10:30 a.m. (the "Settlement Hearing"), before Judge Rufe at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Courtroom 12-A, to determine: (a) whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be approved by the Court; (b) whether a judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against the Defendants; (c) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (d) whether Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. The Notice and Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form") can be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.TrevenaSecuritiesSettlement.com. You may also obtain copies of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator at Trevena Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173133, Milwaukee, WI 53217, (877) 777-9635. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than September 27, 2021. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than July 12, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than July 12, 2021, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Trevena, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: Block & Leviton LLP Attn: Jacob A. Walker 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5617 Email: jake@blockleviton.com Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Trevena Securities Litigation Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173133 Milwaukee, WI 53217 (877) 777-9635 www.TrevenaSecuritiesSettlement.com By Order of the Court http://www.blockleviton.com[GN] TYRO PAYMENTS: Bannister Law Mulls Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Litigation Finance Journal reports that an investigation of claims is underway as Bannister Law Class Actions determines whether a class action against Tyro Payments Limited is warranted. Tyro is a powerhouse provider of payment acceptance logistics, currently serving more than 32,000 businesses in Australia. [GN] UNITED STATES: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Jones FLSA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled DAVID JONES, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00257-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. On May 3, 2019, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, on the basis that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibited the government from paying employees. The Defendant seeks a review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), Fed. R. App. P. 5, of the Court's Order denying its motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as Jones v. United States, Case No. 21-2016, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on June 3, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on June 17, 2021; -- Certificate of Interest is due on June 17, 2021; -- Docketing Statement is due on July 6, 2021; and -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on August 2, 2021. [BN] Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by: Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Plaintiff-Appellee DAVID JONES, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 UNITED STATES: Appeals Dismissal Bid Denial in I.P. FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant United States filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled I.P., et al., Plaintiffs v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:19-cv-00095-PEC, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The Plaintiffs in this putative collective action allege that the government, through several agencies, violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, by failing to timely pay their earned overtime and regular wages during the partial government shutdown and lapse of appropriations that began on December 22, 2018. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they are "essential employees" or "excepted employees," terms which refer to employees who "were required to report to work and perform their normal duties, but were not compensated for their work performed." The Plaintiffs further allege that, in addition to being excepted employees required to work during a shutdown, they were also "classified as FLSA nonexempt Federal Air Marshal[s]." As a result of being categorized as nonexempt, excepted employees, the Plaintiffs were required to work during the shutdown, but were not paid minimum or overtime wages on their regularly scheduled paydays in violation of the FLSA. The Defendant seeks a review of the Court's Order denying its motion to dismiss the case. The appellate case is captioned as I. P. v. U.S., Case No. 21-2020, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on June 3, 2021. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Entry of Appearance is due on June 17, 2021; -- Certificate of Interest is due on June 17, 2021; -- Docketing Statement is due on July 6, 2021; and -- Appellant/Petitioner's brief is due on August 2, 2021. [BN] Defendant-Appellant UNITED STATES is represented by: Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PO Box 480 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Plaintiffs-Appellees I. P., A. C., S. W., D. W., P. V., M. R., R. C., K. W., B. G., and R. H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Lauren Reznick, Esq. BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC 100 Quentin Roosevelt Garden City, NJ 11530 Telephone: (855) 566-2355 E-mail: lr@belllg.com UNITED STATES: Driever Appeals Denial of Bid to Reopen Case ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jeanette Driever filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled JEANETTE DRIEVER, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-01807-TJK, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 27, 2021, Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the dismissal of her complaint, to reopen the case, and to extend her time to appeal. Ms. Driever was incarcerated at Carswell Federal Medical Center ("FMC Carswell") for two stints before she was released from custody in April 2018. In June 2019 -- over a year later -- she filed the suit against the United States, the United States Attorney General, the BOP Director, former Warden of FMC Carswell Jody Upton, "all BOP Wardens," "all BOP Directors of Psychology Services," and "unknown BOP employees," in both their official and individual capacities. In her initial complaint, she claimed that a Bureau of Prisons (BOP) policy, Program Statement 5200.04, violated her rights because it permitted the BOP to place transgender inmates in women's correctional institutions. In particular, she objected to transgender -- mainly male-to-female -- inmates sharing "cells, locker areas, showers, toilets, and other areas where bodily privacy is normatively protected" with female inmates. She asserted violations of her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, requested injunctive and declaratory relief as well as monetary damages, and also sought to bring the matter as a class action by seeking relief on behalf of "similarly situated federal female inmates." Ms. Diever now seeks a review of the Court's Order entered by Judge Kelly. The appellate case is captioned as Jeanette Driever v. USA, et al., Case No. 21-5125, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed on June 4, 2021.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Jeanette Driever, on behalf of all similarly situated federal female inmates, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, appears pro se. Defendants-Appellees United States of America; Attorney General of the United States; Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and Jody Upton, Warden, in his official and individual capacity, are represented by: R. Craig Lawrence, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 555 4th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 252-2500 - and - DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: USEDU Petitions for Writ of Mandamus in Sweet Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled In re SUBPOENA SERVED ON FORMER SECRETARY OF EDUCATION ELISABETH DEVOS, Case No. 3:21-mc-80075-WHA, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The underlying class action concerns applications for loan relief by students who attended, in many cases, for-profit, now-defunct institutions. The Plaintiffs sought relief under Department of Education (USEDU) regulations that authorize such relief when a student can demonstrate some actionable misconduct of their school, such as a material misrepresentation about the school's job placement rates that induced the student to attend the school (and to take out a qualifying loan to do so). The Plaintiffs filed the underlying suit in 2019, claiming that the Department of Education had unreasonably delayed in acting on their applications for relief for a period of approximately one year (a pause in decisions that eventually extended to approximately 18 months) after another district court enjoined the Department's methodology for determining loan relief in 2018. Pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 21, the federal government petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco (USDC-CASF) to reverse its order of May 19, 2021, which authorizes the Plaintiffs to take the deposition of former Secretary of Education Elisabeth DeVos. The district court has stayed its order to permit the review. The appellate case is captioned as USEDU, et al. v. USDC-CASF, Case No. 21-71108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 3, 2021.[BN] Defendants-Petitioners UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; and MIGUEL A. CARDONA, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, are represented by: Mark R. Freeman, Esq. Sean Janda, Esq. Joshua Marc Salzman, Esq. Mark B. Stern, Esq. DOJ - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-5714 Real-Parties-in-Interest-Plaintiffs THERESA SWEET; ALICIA DAVIS; TRESA APODACA; CHENELLE ARCHIBALD; JESSICA DEEGAN; SAMUEL HOOD; and JESSICA JACOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Manuel Juan Dominguez, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL 2925 PGA Blvd. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 833-6575 - and - Rebecca C. Ellis, Esq. Margaret O'Grady, Esq. HARVARD LAW SCHOOL 122 Boylston Street Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 390-2514 - and - Claire L. Torchiana, Esq. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC RIGHTS ADVOCATES P.O. Box 29435 Oakland, CA 94604 Telephone: (510) 271-8443 Real-Party-in-Interest-Movant ELISABETH DEVOS, Former U.S. Secretary of Education, is represented by: Jesse Panuccio, Esq. BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER 1401 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 VERUS INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of June 22 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 Verus International, Inc. (Other OTC: VRUS) and Frequency Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ). 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. Verus International, Inc. (Other OTC: VRUS) Class Period: June 17, 2019 to October 8, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 22, 2021 Verus purports to be a multi-line consumer packaged goods company, which develops branded product lines in the U.S. and globally. Verus was purportedly the fourth fastest growing consumer products food company at the end of 2019, which included its acquisitions of the Big League Foods and a controlling interest in NutriBrands. In order to stem the Company's reeling stock price, which had dipped below $0.01 per share, defendants represented that Verus seized the opportunity presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 3, 2020, Verus announced the acquisition of a controlling 51% interest in ZC Top Apparel Manufacturing, Inc., ("ZTAM"), a purported Philippines-based manufacturer of reusable N95 fabric masks and biohazard suits. According to the press release, Verus was "providing the funding and other resources" to begin fulfilling pending governmental orders on an expedited basis and that "protective gear could eclipse all of [Verus's] existing revenue sources." On this news, the Company's stock price rose from $0.014 to a close of $0.018 on April 3, 2020 following the announcement. Over the next few days, the Company's stock price continued to climb, closing at $0.021 on April 6, 2020. However, in the weeks and months that followed, the Company's stock price declined as the truth was slowly revealed. First, Verus revealed that rollout of sample masks and other PPE were encountering "logistical issues." Second, the Company needed to secure a facility in Vietnam, seemingly unrelated to ZTAM, to produce sample masks months after the announcement. Third, ZTAM Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Ronald Ian Bilang ("Bilang") cryptically tweeted about a potential escalation of regulatory investigations, involvement of the Office of International Affairs ("OIA") and continued deafening silence from Verus and defendants. Finally, on October 8, 2020, Verus announced that the Company issued a "Repayment and Notice of Rescission of Transaction" to ZTAM, as a result of "failure of contractual performance and breach of contract." According to the press release, ZTAM did not register Verus's "controlling interest of 51%" as required under the term sheet dated April 3, 2020. At the time of this announcement, the Company's stock price closed at just $0.002 per share, a total decline 90.5% from when Verus announced its controlling interest in ZTAM. For more information on the Verus class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/VRUS Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) Class Period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021 Frequency Therapeutics has conducted several clinical studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of FX-322, the most significant which was a Phase 2a study that began in October 2019. In April 2020, Frequency's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), David L. Lucchino, began selling his shares of Frequency, totaling over 350,000 shares sold and earning over $10.5 million. On March 23, 2021, before the market opened, Frequency disclosed in a press release disappointing interim results of the Phase 2a study, revealing that subjects with mild to moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures versus placebo. On this news, Frequency's shares fell $28.30, or 78%, to close at $7.99, thereby damaging investors. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Frequency's development and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322" was not producing the results desired by Frequency; (2) FX-322's ongoing clinical study was not as positive as Frequency portrayed it; 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. For more information on the Frequency class action go to: https://bespc.com/cases/FREQ 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] [*] Class Action Attorneys Target Fish Oil Product Manufacturers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey P. Mongiello, Esq., of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports that do plaintiffs' attorneys smell blood in the water? A raft of class-action suits recently initiated against dietary supplement manufacturers, alleging deceptive practices in the sale of fish oil products, suggests that they might. These suits, filed in California federal courts (a favorite jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' bar), are nearly identical in that they allege that the manufacturers' fish oil products do not actually contain fish oil. To date, plaintiffs' class action lawyers have already targeted well-known dietary supplement products, such as Dr. Tobias Omega 3 Fish Oil Triple Strength (by Mimi's Rock) and GNC-brand Triple Strength Fish Oil (by International Vitamin and Nutra Manufacturing). More litigation may be forthcoming. The allegations focuses on the process used to create fish oil supplements -- transesterification. Transesterification is a chemical process used to obtain fatty acid ethyl esters from fish oil achieved by introducing an alcohol catalyst to the fatty triglycerides. The lawsuits claim that the transesterification process intrinsically leaves the finished supplement products without any of the Omega-3 fatty acids DHA or EPA. The plaintiffs also allege that the resulting Omega-3 molecules in the finished post-transesterification product are different than the Omega-3 molecules naturally found in fish oil. Thus, according to the lawsuits, "Once trans-esterified, fish oil is irrevocably transformed, such that it is no longer fish oil and therefore cannot be so named or labeled." As a result, plaintiffs claim that these products mislead the public with false and deceptive labeling that is in violation of federal and state laws. The lawsuits are still in their early stages, so their ultimate success remains to be seen. But the potential impact is substantial. Fish oil supplements constitute a large consumer market. Indeed, the lawsuits put that figure at almost $2 billion per year worldwide with an expectation of nearing $3 billion per year by the end of the decade. Given the sheer size of the market, a lot of dietary supplement manufacturers potentially face copycat suits. And, were the plaintiffs to succeed on their theory that "once trans-esterified, fish oil is irrevocably transformed, such that it is no longer fish oil," then dietary supplement manufacturers may also have to worry about the Federal Trade Commission pursuing civil liability or even an aggressive Department of Justice considering criminal charges. Supplement companies can take action to mitigate potential risks from litigation. A manufacturer should always review and ensure adequate and solid substantiation for any and all claims (express or implied) about products. [GN] [*] Courts Look Unfavorably on Recent Ransomware Class Actions -------------------------------------------------------------- Mason Floyd, Esq., Timothy Herman, Esq., of Clark Hill PLC, in an article for JDSupra, report that as more and more ransomware attacks affect companies large and small, such as the recent, well-known attacks on the Colonial Pipeline and the meat processing company JBS, industrious plaintiffs' counsel will continue to attempt to leverage these attacks to bring class action suits against the companies suffering the attacks. The majority of these attacks are focused on companies in the healthcare industry. A ransomware attack is when an attacker uses malicious software that blocks access to a computer system or data, usually by encrypting it, until the victim pays a fee to the attacker. While these companies not only need to investigate these attacks to prevent them from occurring in the future and allow the companies to gain access to their computer systems, the possibility of a class action can cause even more disruption and concern for such businesses. However, recent courts have looked unfavorably on such suits filed in federal court due to a lack of Article III standing. In Travis v. Assured Imaging, LLC, 2021 WL 1862446 (D. Ariz. May 10, 2021), the plaintiff brought a class action arising out of a May 2020 ransomware attack that led the defendant's computer network inaccessible for several days. The defendant conducted an investigation of the ransomware attack and determined that certain limited data was exfiltrated from the systems while other data simply became inaccessible. While the defendant sent a Notice of Data Breach to certain plaintiffs out of an abundance of caution, the defendant never acknowledged that the plaintiffs' information had been stolen. The court determined that the information accessed (the plaintiffs' full names, address, date of birth, treating clinician, medical history, service performed, and assessment of service performed), would not lead to an increased risk of a certainly impending identity theft or fraud injury and dismissed such claims. The court also found that monitoring costs were not sufficient to confer Article III standing because there was no imminent risk of future harm and plaintiffs cannot manufacture standing by inflicting harm based upon fears of hypothetical injury. Plaintiffs also failed to properly allege that their protected health information ("PHI") became less valuable as a result of the attack, that the attack impacted the value of the services received by the defendant, and that the attack caused the plaintiffs emotional harm. In Graham v. Universal Health Service, Inc., 2021 WL 1962865 (E.D. Penn. May 17, 2021), the plaintiffs brought a putative class action arising out of a Sept. 2020 ransomware attack on one of the largest health care companies in North America. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant failed to safeguard their protected health care information ("PHI") and that the defendant's systems were inaccessible because of the attack. The issue presented to the court was whether the plaintiffs can show injuries sufficient to confer standing in federal court. Two of the three named plaintiffs only alleged increased risk of identity theft as well as expenditures of time and money involved in monitoring the plaintiffs' financial accounts. The third plaintiff alleged that that the ransomware attack delayed his surgery and in the interim, his employer-provided health care insurance lapsed requiring him to purchase alternative insurance at a higher premium. The court analyzed United States Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent to determine whether the plaintiffs alleged Article III standing to bring the case in federal court. The court determined that the one plaintiff who alleged an increase in health care insurance premiums alleged an injury-in-fact to confer standing in federal court and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss on this basis. However, the court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss as to the first two plaintiffs, reasoning that an increased risk of identity theft was not enough to confer standing in federal court. While the plaintiff argued that other circuits (the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth) have found an increased risk of harm sufficient to confer standing in other data breach actions, prior Third Circuit law mandated dismissal under this theory. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the cost to monitor their financial accounts was enough to confer standing. See also Blahous v. Sarrell Reg. Dental Ctr. For Public Health, Inc., 2020 WL 4016246 (M.D. Ala. July 16, 2020) (dismissing class action arising out of ransomware attack); Keach v. BST & Co. CPAs, LLP, 71 Misc.3d 1204(A) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 30, 2021) (granting motion to dismiss plaintiffs' class action ransomware suit); Abernathy v. Brandywine Urology Consultants, P.A., 2021 WL 211144 (Del. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2021) (same). These cases have led certain plaintiffs to file ransomware (and other data breach) class actions in state courts because many state courts do not have the same Article III standing limitations applicable to federal courts. While most defendants would prefer to litigate class actions in federal court, defendants likely will continue to move to dismiss such claims at the outset of the case (as a court can always raise Article III standing sua sponte). While the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on Article III standing in a pending Fair Credit Reporting Act class action appeal in the next few months (See TransUnion v. Ramirez, 20-297) which may impact pending and future ransomware and data breach cases, it is only a matter of time before the Supreme Court takes up the issue of Article III standing specifically in a ransomware or data breach class action. [GN] [*] Quebec Launches Public Consultation on Class Action Reform -------------------------------------------------------------- Ariane Bisaillon, Esq., Elizabeth Desrochers, Esq., Philippe Dubois, Esq., and Claude Marseille Ad.E., Esq., of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reported that on June 1, 2021, Quebec's Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Simon Jolin-Barrette, announced the launch of a public consultation on the prospects of class action reform in Quebec. This consultation follows a report (available in French only) (Report) published in September 2019 by the Universite de Montreal's Class Action Laboratory, whose work was funded by Quebec's Ministry of Justice. The Report calls for, among other things, a review of the prior authorization stage of class actions and recommends active and proactive case management measures to reduce applicable costs and delays. PROPOSED AVENUES FOR REFORM Following the findings of the Report, a consultation paper available (in French only) on Justice Quebec's website proposes eight avenues for reform that can be grouped into four categories. 1. Eliminating the Prior Authorization Stage of a Class Action and Integrating it into the Main Proceedings In a class action in Quebec, a plaintiff seeks to represent a large group of people without having a mandate from them. The class action is therefore subject to a prior authorization process to ensure that the court is satisfied that (i) the plaintiff has an arguable cause of action; (ii) the class members' actions raise one or more identical, similar or related issues; (iii) it is not reasonably possible for the plaintiff to obtain a mandate from the class members; and (iv) the plaintiff can adequately represent them. This process is also an essential screening mechanism to prevent companies doing business in Quebec from being subjected to abusive or baseless class actions. One of the avenues of reform under consideration is to eliminate the prior authorization stage of a class action by integrating it to the main proceedings. While the proposal in this regard is less radical than the Report's proposal to eliminate this stage altogether, it remains nonetheless one of the most significant recommendations of concern for companies doing business in Quebec. Under this model, a class action would begin with filing an originating application without prior authorization. Proceedings would then be stayed to allow the defendant to respond and raise preliminary exceptions to dismiss. A judgment would be rendered on both the authorization of the class action and the exceptions to dismiss, and the parties would then commence proceedings on the merits. Another important aspect of the proposed reform is that the analysis of the suitability of the representative would be subject to an inquisitorial process. The judge hearing the application would meet with the proposed representative without the defendant present to determine whether the representative is in a position to properly represent the class members for whom the representative has not been appointed. 2. Changes in Authorization Criteria Another avenue of reform being considered is the elimination of the colour of right test, which requires the court to ensure that the plaintiff raises an arguable cause of action before authorizing a class action. This is the test most frequently invoked by the Superior Court to refuse the authorization of a class action. Under the proposed reform, a defendant could instead, following commencement of the action, establish one or more preliminary exceptions to dismiss if the defendant believes the action is without merit. The criteria for authorizing a class action would therefore be limited to whether (i) the class members' claims raise one or more identical, similar or related issues; (ii) it would be difficult or impractical for the plaintiff to obtain a mandate from the class members; and (iii) the plaintiff is in a position to properly represent them. One avenue being considered would be to add a proportionality or preferability test for authorizing a class action, or to codify a principle of proportionality applicable to all stages of a class action. The addition of such a test is advisable to the extent that, beyond the mechanical application of the authorization criteria described above, it would allow the court to prevent the long, complex and costly mechanism of a class action from being triggered when it proves to be disproportionate or inappropriate in the circumstances. This would include situations where a company has already put in place a compensation process that the court believes is adequate, for example, through simplified claims refunds, product recalls or free repairs, depending on the circumstances. A similar standard already exists in other Canadian provinces and it is advisable that the legal environment in which businesses operate across the country be as predictable and consistent as possible. 3. Proactive Case Management To reduce the costs and delays associated with a class action, Quebec's Minister of Justice is considering various measures to encourage parties and courts to actively manage cases: Adopting tight deadlines to ensure that the hearing of the application for authorization is held within one year of filing Reducing the number of intervenors for trial readiness; encouraging judges to exercise their discretionary powers proactively Maintaining restrictions on the evidence that a defendant may submit at the authorization stage These measures are already widely applied in practice and care must be taken not to further restrict the rights of defendants, who already struggle to assert their rights at the authorization stage. 4. Assessment and Approval of the Plaintiff's Legal Fees When a class action is concluded, following a final judgment or a settlement, an amount typically representing 33 per cent or more of the total amounts payable to class members will be deducted to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, subject to the court's approval. The payment of such fees is sometimes severely criticized by class members who see their recoveries reduced significantly when, depending on the circumstances, they feel that the case does not justify it. One of the avenues of reform being considered is to establish a more systematic approach for assessing the reasonableness of the fees paid to the plaintiff's lawyers and to redefine the criteria for their approval so that they take into account not only the risks assumed, but also the hours actually worked, and the results achieved. Consideration is also being given to the appointment of an independent "friend of the court" to provide an opinion on a settlement agreement submitted for the court's approval and on the fees claimed by the plaintiff's lawyers. Interested persons are invited to provide comments or suggestions on the proposed avenues for reform through submissions, by July 31, 2021, at sma.smaj@justice.gouv.qc.ca. [GN] [*] U.S. Class Action Spending Hits New High of $2.9 Billion ------------------------------------------------------------ The 10th anniversary edition of the Carlton Fields Class Action Survey reveals that U.S. class action spending is growing at more than twice the rate of other litigation spending, reaching a new high of $2.9 billion in 2020. The number of companies facing class actions is the highest in a decade, and corporate counsel report an increasing number of complex class action matters. The class action landscape has changed significantly since Carlton Fields' annual Class Action Survey launched a decade ago. The number of ongoing class actions managed by survey respondents has more than doubled to 9.3 matters per company in 2020, compared to 4.4 matters per company in 2011. Class action matters have become increasingly high-risk for corporations. In 2020, companies reported that 34.3% of the class actions they faced were high-risk or bet-the-company, up from only 6.2% reported in 2011. Class action spending has increased for six consecutive years, and companies project that spending will hit nearly $3.3 billion in 2021 -- another new record. "With the pandemic, we've seen a groundswell of new litigation, and even those companies who have not yet faced a COVID-19 class action have considered or adopted new business practices in an attempt to address related issues and minimize risk," said Carlton Fields' National Class Actions Practice Group Chair Julianna Thomas McCabe, who also oversees the Class Action Survey with Shareholder Michael N. Wolgin. Added Wolgin, "Companies facing class actions seek partnerships with trusted outside counsel who have a deep understanding of their products and services. They also want their outside counsel to have an appreciation for their risk tolerance and how class actions affect their business goals and bottom line." Additional key findings include: COVID-19 Is a Major Factor in Class Action Spending * In 2020, more than 25% of companies surveyed had already faced at least one class action as a result of the coronavirus pandemic. By April 2021, more than 1,600 COVID-19-related class actions were filed. 8 The three largest categories of COVID-19 class actions relate to insurance coverage for business interruption; higher education refunds; and demands for entertainment, ticket, and travel refunds. * Sixty percent of companies changed one or more business practices during the pandemic to limit class action risk. In-house counsel for an industrial manufacturer said: "We've had to change the entire health and safety landscape to mitigate risk to employees. On the data side, we've had to create protocols and training for employees using personal computers to work remotely." Top Class Action Area is Still Labor and Employment; Data Privacy Statutes are Projected to Bring the Next Wave * Labor and employment matters are the leading category of class actions, accounting for 22.5% of matters and 22.7% of spending. Consumer fraud follows closely at 21.1% of matters and 20.1% of spending. * Companies predict data privacy and cybersecurity matters as the greatest future class action threat. Corporate counsel's high level of concern about data privacy lawsuits is based on recently enacted or forthcoming state privacy statutes such as the California Consumer Privacy Act. * In-house counsel for a life insurance company predicted: "We are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg with privacy class actions." Companies Strategically Manage Class Actions in Partnership with Outside Counsel * Companies recognize four highly effective tools to reduce class action defense costs: the close supervision of budgets, early case assessment, maintaining a relationship with trusted outside counsel, and bundling class action matters with one or more law firms. * Seventy-eight percent of companies now report that they include mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts, the highest percentage since the inception of the survey. Companies also reported an increase in use of arbitration clauses with class action waivers – 74.4% up from 55% reported last year. * For the second consecutive year, settlement rates for class actions declined and were down to 58.5% in 2020. The 2021 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is based on interviews with general counsel or senior legal officers at more than 400 Fortune 1000 and other large companies. The Class Action Survey is widely recognized as a powerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage class actions effectively and efficiently. Surveyed companies had an average annual revenue of $23.4 billion and median annual revenue of $7.1 billion. They operate in more than 25 industries, including banking and financial services, consumer goods, energy, high tech, insurance, manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, professional services, and retail trade. To download the 2021 Carlton Fields Class Action Survey, please visit https://ClassActionSurvey.com. About Carlton Fields Carlton Fields has more than 330 attorneys and government and financial services consultants serving clients from offices in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. The firm is known for its national litigation practice, including class action defense, trial practice, white-collar representation, and high-stakes appeals; its insurance practice, including life and financial lines, property and casualty, reinsurance, and title insurance; its regulatory practice; and its handling of sophisticated business transactions and corporate counseling for domestic and international clients. For additional information, visit www.carltonfields.com. (Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP.) [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 ***