/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210618.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, June 18, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 116
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Felowitz Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Gianantonio Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Heath Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams
3M COMPANY: Kilcullen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
A&G CONTRACTING: Ramos et al. Seek Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Schall Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
ACELRX PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Aug. 9 Deadline
AGAPE HEALTH: Montgomery Sues Over Care Aides' Unpaid Wages
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 13 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
BLACKSTORM LLC: Laney Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLOCK.ONE: Pays $27.5M to Settle Securities Class-Action Lawsuit
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CHUBB LTD: ACE Appeals Ruling in Susan Spath Suit to 3rd Cir.
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Faces Arico Suit Over Share Price Drop
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 16 Deadline
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 12 Deadline
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Baja Sues Over Deficient COBRA Notice
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
DETROIT, MI: Class-Action Filed Over Burial Problems at Cemetery
DOMO INC: Court Upholds Dismissal of Volonte Class Suit
EML PAYMENTS: Lawyers Plan Shareholder Suit Over Money-Laundering
EMPIRE ECS: Faces Suarez Suit Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT
EMPIRE SOLAR: Fails to Pay Wages & Benefits, Winters Suit Claims
ESTES EXPRESS: St. Cloud et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
FINTECH ACQUISITION: Pels Putative Class Suit Underway
FORD MOTOR: Explorer Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved
FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Illegal Background Check
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Douglas Says
GREEN POGO: Adam Appeals RICO Class Suit Dismissal
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Deal in Suit vs. WageWorks Gets Initial Approval
HUNTER BUSINESS: Underpays Financial Aid Advisers, D'Angelo Claims
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 Class Action
IDT CORP: Settlement Agreement in Rosales Awaits Court Approval
KAMLOOPS RESIDENTIAL: Settlement Reached on Class-Action Lawsuit
LEGACY HEALTHCARE: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage
LIVENT CORP: Awaits Court's Final OK of Deal in Securities Suit
LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racial Discrimination
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rico Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
LOWA BOOTS: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Skagit County Suit Tansferred to N.D. Cal.
MERCY HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Green Suit Claims
MERIT LOGISTICS: Faulkner Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MOHAWK GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
NAPA COUNTY, CA: Davis et al. Seek Correctional Officers' Unpaid OT
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Video Service Provider Fees, Suit Says
OCUGEN INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
OOMA INC: Chiu Class Action in Canada Underway
OPERA LIMITED: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 28 Deadline
PREMIUM LINES: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Plaintiff Seeks Extension of Class Cert Filing
PURECYCLE TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 12 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
ROMAN HEALTH: Faces Costa Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
SIX FLAGS: Settles Lawsuit Over Fingerprint Use for $36 Million
SKILLZ INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
SMART FOODS: Fails to Pay Account Managers' Wages, Ramirez Claims
UBIQUITI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
UNITED STATES: Charter Boat Captains Win Class Action Certification
UNITED STATES: NCLA Lawsuit Granted Class-Action Status
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS: Palade Files Certiorari Bid With Sup. Ct.
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over COVID Ticket Refund Policy
WASHINGTON PRIME: Faces Cousinou Securities Suit in Ohio
WASHINGTON PRIME: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 23 Deadline
ZILLION CONCEPTS: Underpays Entertainers, Moore et al. Suit Claims
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Rejects J&J Appeal of $2.1BB Penalty
*********
3M COMPANY: Felowitz Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Felowitz, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE
FIRE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT
DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:21-cv-01752-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
According to the complaint, this action deals with Aqueous Film
Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as
firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl
substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS")
which are man made organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly
referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants).
The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so
as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off
oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing
fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents
designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and
mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous
Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved
in this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants
which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other
perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in
the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA).
The Plaintiff joined the Air Force in 1996, and was subsequently
assigned to Travis AFB, CA (1996-2001). The Plaintiff worked on
Base at Travis using and drinking the water. On information and
belief, Travis AFB has a PFAS environmental contamination level of
712,000ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In late 2004, it was discovered that
Felowitz had papillary thyroid cancer. A total thyroidectomy was
performed in early 2005. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS
was a cause of the harm until approximately mid-2020, when he saw
internet information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Air Force, who during his
service was stationed at Travis AFB, a military installation
identified as being contaminated through use of the toxic chemicals
which are the subject of this action.
3M did and does business nationwide, including within California
inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam
products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which
firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia,
PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (760) 479-5404
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil , Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Phone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Fleming Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Fleming, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY fka
MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE
FIRE FIRE FIGHTING, INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; TYCO
FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITYAMERICA'S, INC; E.I. DUPONT
DE NEMOURS & CO.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 100,
INCLUSIVE; Case No. 2:21-cv-01735-RMG (D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is
brought involving highly toxic chemicals which have earned the
designation "the forever chemicals" because they do not breakdown
and their insidious nature allows them to travel through soil and
into groundwater while maintaining their deadly nature for
decades.
According to the complaint, this action deals with Aqueous Film
Forming Foams ("AFFF") that were designed, manufactured and sold as
firefighting compounds. AFFF compounding includes Perfluorooctane
Sulfonate (commonly known as "PFOS"), Perfluorooctanoic Acid
(commonly known as "PFOA"), and/or other Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl
substances (together, with PFOS and PFOA, commonly known as "PFAS")
which are man made organofluorine compounds (in this case commonly
referred to as fluorinated surfactants/fluorocarbon surfactants) .
The compounds are designed to lower the surface tension of water so
as to create a firefighting foam to quell/smother (cutting off
oxygen), for example, jet fuel fires. AFFF is created by mixing
fluorine-free hydrocarbon foaming substances (chemical agents
designed for a particular purpose) with fluorinated surfactants and
mixing that with water which creates an aqueous film, i.e.: Aqueous
Film Forming Foams ("AFFF"). The manufacturing processes involved
in this action are asserted to have used flourocarbon surfactants
which are believed to include PFOS and PFOA (and/or other
perfluorinated compounds known as "PFC"' are also believed to be in
the mix. PFC's are posited to break down in PFOS and PFOA).
The Plaintiff joined the USMC in 1982, and was subsequently
assigned to Camp Pendleton, CA (1985-1987). The Plaintiff lived on
Base at Camp Pendleton, using and drinking the water. Fleming also
attended fire-fighting training during his service. On information
and belief, Camp Pendleton, CA has a PFAS environmental
contamination level of 820.8ppt (EPA max of 70ppt). In 2013,
Fleming was diagnosed with kidney cancer and underwent a left
radical nephrectomy. The Plaintiff did not discover that PFAS was a
cause of the harm until approximately Spring 2020, when he saw
internet information, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a member of the U.S. Marines, who during his
service was stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA, a military
installation identified as being contaminated through use of the
toxic chemicals which are the subject of this action.
3M did and does business nationwide, including within California
inclusive with U.S. Military Bases/Posts as to firefighting foam
products which 3M manufactured, distributed and/or sold, which
firefighting foams contained toxic chemicals known as, inter alia,
PFOS, PFOA and/or other PFC's.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Phone: (760) 479-5404
Email: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and -
S. James Boumil , Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Phone: (978) 458-0507
Email: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and -
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (800) 934-2921
Email: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Gianantonio Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Michael Gianantonio, and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01733-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Heath Sues Over Exposure to Highly Toxic Foams
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Howard Heath, and those similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01734-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
3M COMPANY: Kilcullen Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Foams & Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Anthony Kilcullen, Sr., and those similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL
COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE
PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION,
INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-01736-RMG
(D.S.C., June 10, 2021), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled
and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF
which contained PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. The Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS
remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks
to humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
prostatic cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter; and was diagnosed with
prostate cancer as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of
PFAS-containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing
chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: 205-328-9200
Facsimile: 205-328-9456
- and -
J. Edward Bell, Esq.
Gabrielle Anna Sulpizio, Esq.
BELL LEGAL GROUP
219 Ridge Street
Georgetown, SC 25442
Phone: 843-546-2408
Facsimile: 843-546-9604
A&G CONTRACTING: Ramos et al. Seek Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN RAMOS, ANGEL REYES FUENTES, JUAN DURAN, and JUNIOR ODAIR
MEDRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. A&G CONTRACTING GROUP CORP., and STEVEN
LOPECK and VICTOR MENADI, as individuals, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03276 (E.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants as cement masons and
carpenters.
The Plaintiffs claim that they regularly worked over 40 hours per
week, but the Defendants denied them of their lawfully earned
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their
regular rates pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week. In addition, the Defendants willfully failed to keep payroll
records, to provide them with written notice and wage statements
upon each payment of wages, 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 Plaintiffs seek all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs together with
reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the Court deems
necessary and proper.
A&G Contracting Group Corp. offers construction services. Steven
Lopeck and Victor Menadi are owners and operators of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Schall Law Reminds of June 18 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against ACADIA
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Acadia" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ACAD) for
violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between June 15,
2020 and April 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before June 18, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3vBnqyy to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Acadia submitted an sNDA for pimavanserin
to the FDA that suffered from design and statistical problems. The
pimavanserin sNDA did not contain the support for its approval
despite the Company telling investors that it did. As a result, the
FDA was unlikely to approve the sNDA as it was submitted. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about Acadia, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
ACELRX PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased AcelRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX)
securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). AcelRx investors have until August 9, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their AcelRx investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
AcelRx is a pharmaceutical company that develops therapies for the
treatment of acute pain. One of its lead product candidates is
DSUVIA, which has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for the management of acute pain in adults
that is severe enough to require an opioid analgesic in certified
medically supervised healthcare settings.
On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that it had received a
warning letter from the FDA concerning promotional claims for
DSUVIA. Specifically, the FDA concluded that certain of AcelRx's
promotional communications "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."
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, 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) AcelRx had
deficient disclosure controls and procedures with respect to its
marketing of DSUVIA; (2) 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; (3) the
foregoing conduct subjected the Company to increased regulatory
scrutiny and enforcement; and (4) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.
If you purchased AcelRx securities, have information or would like
to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Reminds Investors of Aug. 9 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against AcelRx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("AcelRx" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ACRX)
for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 17,
2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 9, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/3gAHvkl to participate.
We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.
The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. AcelRx failed to maintain appropriate
controls over disclosure and marketing of its lead product
candidate, DSUVIA. The Company made false and misleading claims
about the efficacy and associated risks of DSUVIA in its marketing
and advertisements. This led to a heightened risk of regulatory
enforcement action against the Company. Based on these facts, the
Company's public statements were false and materially misleading
throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth
about AcelRx, investors suffered damages.
Join the case to recover your losses.
The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]
AGAPE HEALTH: Montgomery Sues Over Care Aides' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MYOUNG HUI MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff v. AGAPE HEALTH MANAGEMENT INC.,
DONG CHUL CHOI, SUN OK LEE, and SI YANG LEE, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00696 (E.D. Va., June 10, 2021) brings this complaint on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated alleging the
Defendants of fraud and breached of fiduciary duty as well as
intentional and willful violations of the overtime provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Virginia Common Law
Conspiracy.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a personal care
aide (PCA) since on or about January 1, 2019 until on or about
January 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant only paid him 16 hours out
of 24 hours he worked per day. Because the Plaintiff is illiterate
and speaks limited English, the Defendants purportedly decided to
take advantage of the Plaintiff illiteracy by letting him to sign
documents stating the so-called personal care hours of 16 hours per
day and the so-called respite hours of 8 hours per day under the
Plaintiff's full name. The Defendants even charged the Plaintiff
$100 per month for filing documents on his behalf, and even
received reimbursements for 24 hours per day for the Plaintiff's
work from Medicaid through insurance companies. As a result, the
Plaintiff clams that he did not receive payment of the 8 hours per
day of his work and an overtime compensation for the 16 hours per
day and/or in excess of 40 hours per week that he worked.
The Plaintiff seeks to recover money damages for the amount of not
less than $86,964.80 against the Defendant, liquidated damages
equal in amount of the unpaid wages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
all costs plus interest, actual, treble and punitive damages, and
other further relief deemed just and equitable by the Court.
Agape Health Management, Inc. provides home healthcare and RN
geriatric care management services. Defendant Sun Ok Lee is the
owner, Chairwoman and CEO of the Corporate Defendant. Defendant
Dong Chul Choi is the President of the Corporate Defendant.
Defendant Si Yang Lee was another PCA working for the Defendants
and was very close to Defendant Sun Ok Lee. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
(Michael) Hyunkweon Ryu
RYU & RYU, PLC
301 Maple Ave. West, Suite 620
Vienna, VA 22180
Tel: (703) 319-0001
Fax: (703) 562-0787
Website: http://www.ryulawgroup.com
ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 13 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
Array Technologies, Inc. (ARRY)
Class Period: 10/14/2020 - 5/11/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the October 2020, December 2020 or March 2021
public offerings
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 13, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-arry/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
ATERIAN INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is
investigating potential claims against Aterian, Inc. ("Aterian" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATER) and reminds investors of the July 12,
2021 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
If you suffered losses exceeding $50,000 investing in Aterian stock
or options between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021 and would like
to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner James
Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310). You
may also click here for additional information:
www.faruqilaw.com/ATER.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading minority and Woman-owned national
securities law firm with offices in New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, California and Georgia.
As detailed below, the lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and
its executives violated federal securities laws by making false
and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1)
the Company's organic growth is plummeting; (2) the Company's
recent, self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed
assets from questionable sources; (3) Aterian's purported
artificial intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks
customer interest; (4) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or
artificial reviews to pump up their product offerings; (5) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On May 4, 2021, Culper Research published a scathing report
entitled: "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to
You." In this report, Culper wrote that: "the Company has ties to
convicted criminals and is promoting what we believe is an
over-hyped 'AI' narrative and a string of garbage acquisitions to
mask the failure of its already ill-conceived core business."
Culper continued that: "Aterian has been largely unsuccessful in
convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its 'AIMEE' AI platform,
and at least 5 former employees and a former customer have
expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy."
Culper further wrote: "[w]e believe that there are serious problems
with Aterian's claims to maintain strong organic growth and to
drive M&A synergies: to us, neither of these appears to be the
case. . . . In our view, this suggests not only that Aterian is
unable to growth EBITDA at acquired businesses, but that its core
business is also failing to produce."
On this news, the price of Aterian stock fell from its May 3, 2021
close of $20.66 to a May 5, 2021 close of $15.72 per share, a
two-day drop of $4.94 per share or approximately 24%.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Aterian's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.
Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your
particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit
https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/87253 [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors 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 Aterian, Inc. f/k/a Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc.
("Aterian" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATER, MWK) securities between
December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you suffered a loss on your Aterian 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/aterian-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 4, 2021, Culper Research published a report titled "Aterian
(ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to You," alleging
that Aterian has "ties to convicted criminals" and is "promoting
what we believe is an overhyped 'AI' narrative and a string of
garbage acquisitions to mask the failure of its already
ill-conceived core business." Culper also alleges that "[o]ver 25%
of Aterian shares now belong to two felons and two alleged scam
artists, all of whom will be free to dump their stock by August."
The report alleged that the Company "has been largely unsuccessful
in convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its 'AIMEE' AI
platform, and at least 5 former employees and a former customer
have expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy."
On this news, Aterian's stock price fell $4.94 per share, or 24%,
over two trading sessions to close at $15.72 per share on May 5,
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 Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (2) the Company's recent, self-lauded
acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from questionable
sources; (3) Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software
is a flawed product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses
rebate programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their
product offerings; and (5) as a result, Defendants' statements
about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Aterian 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. [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Aterian, Inc. fka Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. ("Aterian" or
the "Company")(NYSE: ATER) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-05163, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Aterian securities
between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Aterian securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 12, 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.
[Click https://bit.ly/3xy8NgC for information about joining the
class action]
Aterian purports to be a "technology-enabled consumer products
platform that builds, acquires and partners with e-commerce brands.
The Company's proprietary software and highly agile supply chain
helps creating for a growing base of data empowered e-commerce
customers. Aterian predominantly operates through online retail
channels such as Amazon and Walmart, Inc."
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent,
self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from
questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial
intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks customer
interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or artificial
reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On December 1, 2020, the Company announced that it had acquired the
assets of "leading e-commerce business brands Mueller, Pursteam,
Pohl and Schmitt, and Spiralizer" from 9830 Macarthur LLC, ZN
Direct LLC, and Reliance Equities Group, LLC. On this news, shares
jumped from their December 1, 2020 close of $6.89 per share to a
December 2, 2020 close of $8.12, representing a one-day surge of
nearly 18%. Shares continued to soar, closing at $17.21 per share
on December 31, 2020, and eventually approaching nearly $49.00 per
share in mid-February 2021.
On May 4, 2021, analyst Culper Research published a scathing report
entitled: "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to
You." In this report, Culper wrote that "the Company has ties to
convicted criminals and is promoting what we believe is an
overhyped 'AI' narrative and a string of garbage acquisitions to
mask the failure of its already ill-conceived core business."
Culper continued that "Aterian has been largely unsuccessful in
convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its 'AIMEE' AI platform,
and at least 5 former employees and a former customer have
expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy. We think that
Aterian's underlying business has failed, forcing the Company to
obscure its poor performance with a series of questionable
acquisitions."
Culper further wrote: "[w]e believe that there are serious problems
with Aterian's claims to maintain strong organic growth and to
drive M&A synergies: to us, neither of these appears to be the
case. . . . In our view, this suggests not only that Aterian is
unable to growth EBITDA at acquired businesses, but that its core
business is also failing to produce."
On this news, the price of Aterian stock fell from its May 3, 2021
close of $20.66 to a May 5, 2021 close of $15.72 per share, a
two-day drop of $4.94 per share or approximately 24%.
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 [GN]
ATERIAN INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Aterian, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATER) f/k/a
Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: MWK) between December 1, 2020
through May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the
important July 12, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Aterian securities during the Class
Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any
out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 12, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Aterian's organic growth is
plummeting; (2) Aterian's recent, self-lauded acquisitions were
overpayments for flawed assets from questionable sources; (3)
Aterian's purported artificial intelligence software is a flawed
product that lacks customer interest; (4) Aterian uses rebate
programs and paid or artificial reviews to pump up their product
offerings; and (5) as a result, defendants' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Aterian class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2095.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
BLACKSTORM LLC: Laney Seeks Security Guards' Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LANEY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKSTORM LLC and SHANTI GOVENDER,
Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-01904 (S.D. Tex., June 10, 2021) brings
this collective action complaint brought against the Defendant
seeking to recover all unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as a security guard,
claims that although he regularly worked over 40 hours a week, the
Defendants did not compensate him for the overtime hours he
performed work at the rate of one and one-half times his regular
rate of pay. Instead, he was only paid on an hourly basis at a
straight time rate of $12.00 per hour. The Defendants allegedly
employed an illegal pattern and/or practice of failing to pay the
minimum wage and/or overtime compensation to any of their security
guards.
Blackstorm LLC is a company that provides security services, owned
by Shanti Govender. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R.
MILTENBERGER, PLLC
1360 N. White Chapel, Ste. 200
Southlake, TX 76092-4322
Tel: (817) 416-5060
Fax: (817) 416-5062
E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com
BLOCK.ONE: Pays $27.5M to Settle Securities Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Block.one settled a class-action lawsuit filed by the Crypto Assets
Opportunity Fund (CAOF) related to the company's recording-setting
$4 billion token sale in 2018.
The court-approved $27.5 million settlement closes the lawsuit,
Block.one announced.
Block.one called the suit "without merit" in a blog post but said
the settlement would allow it "to focus more time and energy on
running our business."
Block.one previously settled with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for $24 million over the alleged unregistered securities
sale.
Block.one raised the whopping sum at the peak of the crypto
market's last bull run to build the software that powers the EOS
blockchain.
The CAOF argued that Block.one had purposefully misled investors
and artificially inflated its eos token price during its yearlong
initial coin offering (ICO), which ended in 2018.
The ICO sold approximately one billion tokens with 90% to ICO
participants and the remainder to Block.one team members. [GN]
CAMPBELL SOUP: Bid to Dismiss New Jersey Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Campbell Soup Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2021, that the motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint filed in the consolidated class action
suit entitled, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation,
Civ. No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS, is pending.
On January 7, 2019, three purported shareholder class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey (the Court) were consolidated under the
caption, In re Campbell Soup Company Securities Litigation, Civ.
No. 1:18-cv-14385-NLH-JS (the Action). Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System was appointed lead plaintiff in the
Action and, on March 1, 2019, filed an amended consolidated
complaint.
The company, Denise Morrison (the company's former President and
Chief Executive Officer), and Anthony DiSilvestro (the company's
former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) are
defendants in the Action.
The amended consolidated complaint alleges that, in public
statements between July 19, 2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted
material information about the company's business, operations,
customer relationships, and prospects, specifically with regard to
the Campbell Fresh segment. The amended consolidated complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
On April 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint, which the Court granted on November
30, 2020, with leave to amend the complaint.
On January 15, 2021, the plaintiff filed its second amended
consolidated complaint. The second amended consolidated complaint
again names as defendants the company and certain of its former
officers and alleges that, in public statements between August 31,
2017 and May 17, 2018, the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omitted material information about the
company's business, operations, customer relationships, and
prospects, specifically with regard to the Campbell Fresh segment.
The second amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.
On March 10, 2021 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended consolidated complaint.
Campbell said, "We are vigorously defending against the Action."
Campbell Soup Company, together with its subsidiaries, manufactures
and markets branded food and beverage products. It operates through
three segments: Americas Simple Meals and Beverages, Global
Biscuits and Snacks, and Campbell Fresh. Campbell Soup Company was
founded in 1869 and is headquartered in Camden, New Jersey.
CHEMOCENTRYX INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 6 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
ChemoCentryx, Inc. (CCXI)
Class Period: 11/26/2019 - 5/6/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 6, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-ccxi/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
CHUBB LTD: ACE Appeals Ruling in Susan Spath Suit to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY filed an appeal
from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Susan Spath
Hegedus, Inc. d/b/a Kern & Co., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CHUBB LTD; and ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-CV-02832, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 22, 2020, the
lawsuit is brought for declaratory relief and breach of contract
arising from the Plaintiff's contract of insurance with the
Defendant.
At the direction of local, state, and/or federal authorities, the
Plaintiff was forced to temporarily close its luxury interior
design/retail furnishing business beginning on March 20, 2020,
causing an interruption to and loss of the Plaintiff's business
income. The Plaintiff and the Class purchased and paid for an
"all-risk" Commercial Property Coverage insurance policy from
Defendant, which provides broad property insurance coverage for all
non-excluded, lost business income, including the losses asserted
here.
The Plaintiff says it submitted timely notice of its claim to the
Defendant, but the Defendant has refused to provide the purchased
coverage to its insured, and has denied the Plaintiff's claim for
benefits under the policy. The Defendant has similarly refused to,
or will refuse to, honor its obligations under the "all-risk"
policy(ies) purchased by the Plaintiff and the other members of the
putative Class of insureds, says the complaint.
ACE moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a viable claim. The district court denied the motion, asserting
that the Plaintiff had plausibly alleged that it suffered a "direct
physical loss" of property when it "lost the ability to physically
operate its business," and that the Virus Exclusion is not clearly
enforceable and applicable to the Plaintiff's loss. After denying
the motion, however, the court certified its order for appeal under
28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b) and stayed further proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned as SUSAN SPATH HEGEDUS, INC. d/b/a
KERN & CO., Plaintiff-Respondent v. CHUBB LTD and ACE FIRE
UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Petitioner, Case No.
21-8032, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on June 1, 2021.[BN]
Defendant-Petitioner ACE Fire Underwriters Insurance Company is
represented by:
Stephen A. Cozen, Esq.
Eric D. Freed, Esq.
Charles J. Jesuit, Esq.
Stephen S. Kempa, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
One Liberty Place
1650 Market Street, Suite 2800
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 665-3724
E-mail: efreed@cozen.com
cjesuit@cozen.com
skempa@cozen.com
- and -
Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq.
Jenya Godina, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
- and -
Richard B. Goetz, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 430-6000
E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com
- and -
Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-6700
E-mail: dpetrocelli@omm.com
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Faces Arico Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS ARICO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCHILL CAPITAL CORPORATION IV, ATIEVA,
INC. d/b/a LUCID MOTORS, MICHAEL KLEIN, JAY FARAGIN, and PETER
RAWLINSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-12355 (D.N.J., June 9,
2021) seeks to recover compensable damages under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Defendants' issuance of false
and misleading statements resulting to the precipitous decline in
the market value of the Company's securities.
The lawsuit is brought on behalf of persons or entities, who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded CCIV securities
between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 2021, inclusive.
On January 22, 2021, the price per share of CCIV had risen
significantly due to leaks and rumors regarding the now-pending
merger with Defendant Lucid. Journalists from various news
organizations reported that a deal was near completion and that a
merger was imminent. On February 22, 2021, the long-anticipated
merger agreement between Defendants CCIV and Lucid was announced.
Defendant CCIV's and Defendant Lucid's transaction equity value was
estimated at $11.75 billion.
The Plaintiff alleges that the statements in the Company's annual
reports were materially false and/or misleading because they
misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts
pertaining to CCIV's and Lucid's business, operations and
prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) Lucid's inability to
produce cars in the first half of 2021; (2); Lucid's actual
timeframe to produce cars; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times, the suit asserts.
On this news, shares of CCIV fell $22.16 per share, or 38%, to
close at $35.21 per share on February 23, 2020, damaging investors,
the suit added.
Churchill Capital Corporation IV is a blank check company, also
known as a special purpose acquisition company.
Lucid Motors is an automotive company specializing in electric
cars. Defendant Lucid was founded in 2007 by Defendant
Rawlinson.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: (973) 313-1887
Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 16 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
ContextLogic Inc. (WISH)
Class Period: 12/16/2020 - 5/12/2021, or purchase of shares issued
either in or after the December 2020 Initial Public Offering
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 16, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-wish/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of July 16 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WISH)
between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
ContextLogic common stock in connection with ContextLogic's
December 16, 2020 initial public offering ("IPO").
If you purchased or otherwise acquired ContextLogic common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than July 16, 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.
ContextLogic 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 ContextLogic Securities Class Litigation
ContextLogic, headquartered in San Francisco, California, is a
global mobile e-commerce company that operates the Wish platform
that connects its value-conscious user base to merchants. Wish
generates revenue by charging merchants a commission on sales made
in its marketplace. On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed
its IPO by issuing and selling more than 46 million shares of its
Class A common stock at $24 per share, raising more than $1.1
billion in proceeds.
The action alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions about
the strength of ContextLogic's business operations and financial
prospects by overstating its then-present monthly active users
("MAUs") and MAU growth trends. For example, in its IPO
registration statement, declared effective on December 15, 2020,
ContextLogic reported it had 108 million MAUs as of September 30,
2020, and emphasized sustained MAU growth from just 21 million MAUs
since 2015. ContextLogic also underscored the importance of this
performance metric by claiming that "[w]e view the number of MAUs
as key driver of revenue growth as well as a key indicator of user
engagement and awareness of our brand."
On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported disappointing results for
the fourth quarter and full year 2020 and revealing that its MAUs
had "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million." On this news,
ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.83 per share, or more than 10%,
from its closing price of $17.77 on March 5, 2021, to close at
$15.94 on March 8, 2021, on unusually high trading volume. That
same day, the Company issued Q1 sales guidance of $735-750 million
(representing year-over-year growth of 67-70%), based on continued
strong demand for its Wish platform.
On May 12, 2021, ContextLogic revealed that that its MAUs had
declined another 7% to 101 million during Q1. In addition, the
Company issued disappointing revenue guidance for the second
quarter 2021. On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36
per share, or approximately 29%, from its closing price of $11.47
on May 12, 2021, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021, on
unusually high trading volume. [GN]
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of May 12 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
-Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
of a securities class action lawsuit against ContextLogic, Inc.
(NASDAQ: WISH) ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") and certain of its
officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Company's
December 2020 initial public offering ("IPO"), alleging violations
of both the Securities Act of 1933 and, separately, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. If you purchased ContextLogic securities
between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 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.
ContextLogic is a mobile ecommerce company that operates the Wish
platform, which connects customers with merchants across the
globe.
On December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed its IPO, issuing 46
million shares of its Class A common stock at $24 per share,
raising more than $1.1 billion in gross proceeds. According to the
complaint, the Registration Statement and Prospectus used to
effectuate ContextLogic's IPO were materially false and misleading.
Specifically, these offering materials misrepresented the
then-existing truth about: (1) the "differentiated user experience"
ContextLogic repeatedly credited as driving the wide-adoption of
the Wish platform by customers who are offered access to
high-quality merchants, selling affordable, high-quality products,
and merchants who are offered reliable logistical services; (2) the
Company's sales and marketing engine, which ContextLogic said it
would "continue to invest in" and that purportedly serves as a
competitive advantage in attracting new users and increasing user
engagement on the Wish platform; and (3) the Company's monthly
active user (MAU) growth, which it considered "a key indicator of
user engagement and awareness of [its] brand."
On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended December
31, 2020, disclosing that its MAUs had already "declined 10% year
over year during Q4." In that same report the company also revealed
logistics challenges it faced earlier in the year. On this news,
ContextLogic's stock declined 10%, falling from $17.77 on March 5,
2021 to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021, the next
trading day.
Then on May 12, 2020, ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial results
for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, revealing that its
MAUs had declined another 7%. On this news, ContextLogic's stock
price fell $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on
May 13, 2021.
What You Can Do
If you purchased ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020
and May 12, 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 26, 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.
[GN]
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Baja Sues Over Deficient COBRA Notice
-------------------------------------------------------
JOHN G. BAJA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 0:21-cv-61210 (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2021) alleges
that the Defendant repeatedly violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to provide
participants and beneficiaries in the Costco Employee Benefits
Program with adequate notice, as prescribed by the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Act (COBRA), of their right to
continue their health insurance coverage following an occurrence of
a "qualifying event" as defined by the statute.
The Defendant's COBRA Notice allegedly confused Plaintiff and
resulted in his inability to make an informed decision as to
electing COBRA continuation coverage. As a result of the deficient
notice, Plaintiff did not elect COBRA continuation coverage and
Plaintiff suffered a tangible injury in the form of economic loss,
specifically the loss of health insurance coverage, says the suit.
Costco Wholesale Corporation is an American multinational
corporation which operates a chain of membership-only big-box
retail stores. The Company is the plan sponsor and plan
administrator of the Costco Employee Benefits Program.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 224-0431
Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
bhill@wfclaw.com
DANIMER SCIENTIFIC: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 13 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
securities fraud class action lawsuits have been filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
against Danimer Scientific, Inc. (NYSE: DNMR) ("Danimer") f/k/a
Live Oak Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: LOAK) ("Live Oak") on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Danimer securities between October
5, 2020 and May 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired
Danimer securities during the Class Period may, no later than July
13, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative
of the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/danimer-scientific-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=danimer
Live Oak was a publicly traded special purpose acquisition company.
In December 2020, Live Oak consummated a business combination with
Meredian Holdings Group, Inc. ("Meredian"), 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.
The Class Period commences on October 5, 2020, when Meredian
announced that it had entered into a definitive agreement for the
Business Combination. On December 30, 2020, Danimer issued a
post-market press release announcing the completion of the Business
Combination. That press release represented that "[Danimer's]
signature polymer, Nodax(TM) PHA (polyhydroxyalkanoate), is a 100%
biodegradable, renewable, and sustainable plastic" that "is the
first PHA polymer to be certified as marine degradable, the highest
standard of biodegradability, which verifies the material will
fully degrade in ocean water without leaving behind harmful
microplastics." The press release also touted that Danimer was
partnering with blue chip companies to "introduce more sustainable
alternatives to straws, food and beverage containers, and flexible
packaging, among others." Throughout the Class Period, Danimer
touted Nodax's environmental benefits, its viability as a fully
biodegradable alternative to conventional plastic, the level of
demand for Nodax, and the average selling price for Nodax.
The truth began to emerge on March 20, 2021, when the Wall Street
Journal 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. Specifically, the article
reported that "many claims about Nodax are exaggerated and
misleading, according to several experts on biodegradable
plastics," and that, despite breaking down more quickly than
traditional fossil-fuel plastics, "[b]iodegradable straws, bottles
and bags can persist in the ocean for several years." Following
this news, the price of Danimer stock declined by $6.43, from
$49.98 per share on March 19, 2021 to $43.55 per share on March 22,
2021, approximately 13%.
On April 22, 2021, research firm Spruce Point Capital Management
("Spruce Point") issued a report demonstrating that Danimer's
annual report disclosures regarding the purchase price of the
Kentucky Facility were inconsistent with city records. Then, on May
4, 2021, Spruce Point issued a follow-up report which revealed that
Danimer's production figures, average selling price, and financial
projections had been "wildly overstated." Following this news,
Danimer's stock price fell $4.48, or 20%, over three consecutive
trading sessions to close at $17.66 per share on May 6, 2021.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the defendants overstated and/or misstated the
biodegradability and environmentally-friendly nature of its Nodax
product; (2) the defendants misrepresented the size of Danimer's
facilities, production capacity and actual production amounts, and
costs; (3) the defendants misrepresented Danimer's growth,
financial results, and financial projections; (4) Danimer had
deficient internal controls; and (5) as a result, Danimer's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Danimer investors may, no later than July 13, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
DETROIT, MI: Class-Action Filed Over Burial Problems at Cemetery
----------------------------------------------------------------
clickondetroit.com reports that twenty families contacted police
over fears their loved ones were buried in the wrong place at
Gethsemane Cemetery, according to authorities.
Families knew something was wrong and they said the cemetery's
management wouldn't give them a straight answer.
After three days of digging and investigating by police and the
FBI, some families are moving forward with a class-action lawsuit
against the city of Detroit -- which owns the property, a local
church and two cemetery management companies.
The 18-page lawsuit claims officials at Gethsemane Cemetery:
-- Buried family members in plots different than those that were
purchased by the families;
-- Willfully misrepresented where bodies had been buried;
-- Moved gravestones, grave markers and remains to burial plots
different than the original resting place without consent or
required permits;
-- Double-sold burial plots at Gethsemane Cemetery, or caused
multiple deceased individuals to be buried in a single plot while
letting those who purchased the plot to believe only on person
would be buried there. [GN]
DOMO INC: Court Upholds Dismissal of Volonte Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Domo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the plaintiff's motion to amend or alter
judgment or for reconsideration on the court's decision granting
the motion to dismiss the Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No.
19-04-01778, has been denied.
In November 2019, a securities class action complaint captioned
Volonte v. Domo, Inc., et. al, Case No. 19-04-01778, was filed by a
stockholder of the Company in the Fourth Judicial District Court
for the County of Utah in the State of Utah against the Company,
certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors,
and the underwriters of the Company's June 2018 initial public
offering alleging violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's initial
public offering and seeking unspecified damages.
In January 2020, the defendants filed a motion to stay the Volonte
action in favor of the Patton action. On July 22, 2020, the court
denied the defendants' motion to stay.
On August 19, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Volonte complaint. On April 13, 2021, the court granted the motion
and dismissed the complaint.
On April 25, 2021, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend or alter
judgment or for reconsideration.
On June 2, 2021, the court denied the motion.
The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the case vigorously.
Domo, Inc. operates a cloud-based platform in the United States.
Its platform digitally connects chief executive officer to the
frontline employee with the people, data, and systems in an
organization, giving them access to real-time data and insights,
and allowing them to manage business from smartphones. The Company
was formerly known as Domo Technologies, Inc. and changed its name
to Domo, Inc. in December 2011. Domo, Inc. was founded in 2010 and
is headquartered in American Fork, Utah.
EML PAYMENTS: Lawyers Plan Shareholder Suit Over Money-Laundering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
thewest.com.au reports that Queensland tech firm EML Payments could
face a class action for allegedly failing to disclose a
money-laundering probe into its Irish subsidiary to shareholders.
Maurice Blackburn lawyers say EML's shares plummeted 45 per cent on
the Australian Stock Exchange on May 19 when it announced that the
Central Bank of Ireland had "significant regulatory concerns" about
its subsidiary PFS Card Services (Ireland) Ltd.
The central bank said it was concerned about the EML unit's
compliance with Irish anti-money laundering and counter terrorism
financing rules.
Maurice Blackburn said the Queensland firm announced days later
that it had actually had "increased interaction" with the Irish
central bank since mid-December.
Maurice Blackburn senior associate Michael Donelly says EML should
have disclosed that information to the market and shareholders
immediately, rather than waiting until after the Central Bank of
Ireland's announcement in May.
"Under Australian law, companies are required to inform the market
of all relevant developments to ensure transparency," Mr Donelly
said in a statement on Friday.
"On any reasonable interpretation, it appears the company should
have disclosed its interaction with the Central Bank of Ireland at
the first available opportunity."
He said EML may have breached continuous disclosure laws or engaged
in "misleading or deceptive conduct".
Mr Donelly said the Irish central bank's investigation was of
"grave concern" for EML shareholders.
"An object of the anti-money laundering laws is to promote public
confidence by the disruption of money laundering," he added.
"Shareholders are entitled to expect that a company involved in
international finance would have best practice governance and risk
control frameworks and not run foul of regulators."
Maurice Blackburn has called anyone who held shares in EML between
November 11, 2019 and May 18 this year to register for the class
action. [GN]
EMPIRE ECS: Faces Suarez Suit Over Failure to Pay Carpenters' OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
CRISPIN SUAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE ECS LLC and MATTHEW LIO and DOMINICK
LIO, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05139 (S.D.N.Y.,
June 10, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendants seeking compensatory damages and other legal and
equitable remedies as a result of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around June
2018 until in or around November 2020 to perform his primary duties
as a carpenter and to perform other miscellaneous duties.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied him and other
similarly situated carpenters their lawfully earned overtime
compensation. Despite regularly working over 40 hours per week, the
Defendant did not pay them at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rates of pay for all hours they worked in excess of
40 per week. Moreover, the Defendant failed to keep accurate
records, and failed to provide them with wage statements, the
Plaintiff asserts.
Empire ECS LLC provides construction services. Matthew Lio and
Dominick Lio own and operate the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
EMPIRE SOLAR: Fails to Pay Wages & Benefits, Winters Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
GAGE WINTERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EMPIRE SOLAR GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-00365-JCB (D. Utah, June 14, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for collection of unpaid
wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (the WARN Act).
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant to work at its SLC Facility until his termination without
cause on or about June 8, 2021 together with the termination of
approximately 100 other employees as part of a mass layoff and/or
plant closing. The Defendant purportedly failed to provide them
with 60 days advance written notice under the WARN Act prior to
their terminations. In addition, the Defendant failed to pay them
their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued
holiday pay and accrued vacation for 60 days, and failed to make
401(k) contributions and provide them with health insurance
coverage and other employee benefits, the suit added.
Empire Solar Group, LLC is a solar installation company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 581-5005
Fax: (212) 581-2122
- and –
Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
210 S. Washington Ave.
Mobile, AL 36602
Tel: (251) 433-8100
Fax: (251) 433-8181
- and –
Chad Johnson, Esq.
Lauren Scholnick, Esq.
STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK BIRCH HALLAM
HARSTAD THORNE
675 East 2100 South, Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84106
Tel: (801) 359-4169
Fax: (801) 359-4313
ESTES EXPRESS: St. Cloud et al. Sue Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMARCUS ST. CLOUD and STEVEN BUTLER, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00456 (M.D. Tenn., June 10, 2021)
bring this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by willfully failing to
comply with the maximum hour provisions.
The Plaintiffs, who have worked for the Defendant as dock workers
and then as yard jockeys a year after, assert that they began to
notice throughout their employment as yard jockeys that their
paychecks reflected a minimal time worked as a dock worker which
affected their overtime rate. Despite frequently working between 45
to 55 hours a week as yard jockey, the Defendant allegedly failed
to pay them proper overtime wages at one and one-half times their
standard hourly rates for all hours they have worked in excess of
40 hours.
On behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated laborers,
the Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid wages, including
overtime, as well as liquidated damages, all reasonable costs,
intertest and attorney's fees, and other legal relief as may be
appropriate or to which they may be entitled under federal law.
Estes Express Lines, Inc. provides full-service regional, national,
and international LTL freight shipping transportation. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan A. Street, Esq.
Cullen D. Hamelin, Esq.
THE EMPLOYMENT AND CONSUMER LAW GROUP
1720 West End Ave., Ste 402
Nashville, TN 37203
Tel: (615) 850-0632
FINTECH ACQUISITION: Pels Putative Class Suit Underway
------------------------------------------------------
Fintech Acquisition Corp IV said in its Form 8-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 11, 2021,
that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit
entitled, John Pels v. FinTech Acquisition Corp. IV, et al., Case
No. 2021-0184.
FinTech Acquisition Corp. IV, a Delaware corporation (FTIV), filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 30, 2020,
as amended by an Amendment to Current Report on Form 8-K/A of the
Company filed with the SEC on December 31, 2020, on December 29,
2020, the Company announced that it entered into a Business
Combination Agreement, dated as of December 29, 2020, by and among
the Company, FinTech Investor Holdings IV, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, Fintech Masala Advisors, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, PWP Holdings LP, a Delaware limited partnership
("PWP"), PWP GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the
general partner of PWP, PWP Professional Partners LP, a Delaware
limited partnership and a limited partner of PWP, and Perella
Weinberg Partners LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and the
general partner of Professionals, pursuant to which, among other
things, the Company will acquire interests in PWP, which will
become jointly-owned by the Company, Professionals, and certain
existing partners of PWP and following the closing of the
transactions contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement
("the Closing") will serve as the Company's operating partnership
as part of an umbrella limited partnership C-corporation (Up-C)
structure (collectively with the other transactions contemplated by
the Business Combination Agreement, the "Business Combination").
In connection with the Business Combination Agreement, the Company
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a definitive
proxy statement, dated May 27, 2021, and commenced mailing the
Proxy Statement to stockholders of the Company on or about May 27,
2021.
The Company is aware of two lawsuits that have been filed by
purported stockholders of the Company against the Company and its
directors and certain of its officers, challenging the transactions
contemplated by the Business Combination Agreement.
On February 17, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed
a lawsuit against the Company and its directors and officers in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, captioned
Garrett Truesdale v. FinTech Acquisition Corp. IV, et. al, Case No.
651107/2021. The complaint alleges that, among other things, the
defendants breached their fiduciary duty and the Company aided and
abetted the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty.
On March 2, 2021, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action lawsuit against, among others, the Company
and its directors and an officer in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware, captioned John Pels v. FinTech Acquisition Corp.
IV, et al., Case No. 2021-0184.
The Pels complaint alleges, among other things, that the
preliminary proxy statement that the Company filed with the SEC,
dated February 5, 2021, lacks certain information necessary to not
mislead stockholders.
These complaints seek, among other things, (i) injunctive relief
preventing the consummation of the proposed transaction, (ii)
rescissory damages or rescission in the event the proposed
transaction is consummated and (iii) plaintiffs' attorneys' and
experts' fees, and costs.
The two lawsuits are collectively referred to as the "Business
Combination Litigation."
The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Business
Combination Litigation are without merit and that no supplemental
disclosure is required under applicable laws.
However, in order to reduce the risk of the Business Combination
Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Business Combination
and to minimize the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the
Company has determined to voluntarily supplement the Proxy
Statement by providing additional information.
A copy of the supplemental disclosure is available at
https://bit.ly/3cGmaUj.
Fintech Acquisition Corp IV operates as a blank check company. The
Company aims to acquire one and more businesses and assets, via a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase,
and reorganization.
FORD MOTOR: Explorer Class Action Settlement Preliminarily Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
carcomplaints.com reports that a Ford Explorer class action
settlement has been preliminarily approved after three SUV owners
complained exhaust fumes and carbon monoxide entered their
Explorers.
Included in the settlement are:
"All entities and natural persons in the United States (including
its Territories and the District of Columbia) who currently own or
lease (or who in the past owned or leased) a model year 2016 and
2017 Ford Explorer sold or leased in the United States, excluding
2016 and 2017 Police Interceptor Utility Ford Explorers." — Ford
Explorer class action settlement
Ford says it decided to settle the class action lawsuit to avoid a
costly and lengthy trial, and the automaker denies all liability
and wrongdoing alleged in the Explorer lawsuit.
The plaintiffs claim Ford sold 2016-2017 Explorers with defects
that allow exhaust fumes to enter the cabins and sicken occupants.
Ford has been issuing technical service bulletins (TSBs) and free
customer service programs over the past years, and some of those
programs are included as benefits of the Explorer class action
settlement.
Ford Explorer Class Action Settlement Terms
Specifically, repairs provided under field service action (FSA)
17N03 (announced in 2017) and 19N05 (announced in 2019) are offered
regardless of mileage or warranty status until July 31, 2022.
Ford Explorer customers may also be eligible for exhaust odor
repairs available under TSB 17-0044 which include inspection and
sealing of gaps in the passenger compartment, and installation of a
modified exhaust system in Explorers equipped with aspirated
3.5-liter engines.
TSB 17-0044 was originally issued to Ford dealers in May 2017 and
included reprogramming the HVAC module, sealing and patching of any
holes or air leaks and the installation of downturned exhaust tips
in Ford Explorers with 3.5L twin independent variable camshaft
timing (TiVCT) engine types.
However, the bulletin only applied when an Explorer owner had
lodged repeated complaints about exhaust odors.
Ford Explorer customers may also be eligible for partial
reimbursements for expenses related to post warranty technical
service bulletin repairs. Explorer owners who had the FSA repairs
performed on the SUVs and then pay for TSB repairs after expiration
of their warranties are eligible for partial reimbursement of those
costs.
However, those expenses must occur within four years or 48,000
miles after the Explorer was first placed in service (whichever
comes first), or 120 days after the date for the completion of the
class action notice.
If an Explorer customer is eligible after meeting those conditions,
the customer may be reimbursed up to $125 for expenses related to
the inspection and sealing of gaps in the passenger compartment.
Additionally, reimbursement may be up to $400 for costs related to
the installation of a modified exhaust system in an Explorer
equipped with a normally aspirated 3.5-liter TiVCT engine.
Attorneys for Ford owners are expected to receive $3.5 million.
A final fairness hearing for the Ford Explorer class action
settlement will be held November 15, 2021.
The Ford Explorer class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern
Division: Persad, et al., v. Ford Motor Company.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Miller Law Firm, P.C., and
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. [GN]
FREQUENCY INC: Scott+Scott Attorneys Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, reminds investors
of a securities class action lawsuit against Frequency, Inc.
(NASDAQ: FREQ) ("Frequency" or the "Company") and its Chief
Executive Officer, David Lucchino, alleging violations of Sec10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Sec78j(b) and
78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R.
Sec240.10b-5). If you purchased Frequency common stock between
November 16, 2020, and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and have suffered a loss, realized or unrealized, you are
encouraged to contact Joe Pettigrew for additional information at
844-818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
Frequency is a pharmaceutical company focused on the development
and commercialization of a hearing loss treatment titled "FX-322,"
which the Company has long promoted as a potential treatment for
patients with severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL").
The complaint alleges that Frequency and CEO Lucchino misled
investors about the Phase 2a study of FX-322.
Before the market opened on March 23, 2021, 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 from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78%
drop, damaging investors.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline
The Lead Plaintiff deadline in this action is August 2, 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 Frequency common stock between November 16, 2020,
and March 22, 2021, or if you have questions about this notice or
your legal rights, you are encouraged to contact attorney Joe
Pettigrew at 844-818-6982 or jpettigrew@scott-scott.com.
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.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210610005782/en/ [GN]
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Sues Over Illegal Background Check
----------------------------------------------------------
NAJEE SLADE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC, a Tennessee
corporation; GEODIS USA, LLC, a Pennsylvania corporation; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21CV382877 (Cal. Sup.
Ct., June 10, 2021) is a class action complaint brought against the
Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant performed an unauthorized
background investigation on him when she applied for employment
with the Defendants. The Defendants allegedly did not provide
legally compliant disclosure and authorization forms to the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons as the forms
contained extraneous and superfluous language that causes the
disclosure to fail to be "clear and conspicuous" and "clear and
accurate", thereby violated Sections 1681b(b)(2)(A) and 1681d(a).
The Corporate Defendants provide supply chain management solutions.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
David Keledjian, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (310) 888-7771
Fax: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
david@setarehlaw.com
GERBER PRODUCTS: Baby Foods Contain Heavy Metals, Douglas Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIESHIA DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-12354 (D.N.J., June 9, 2021) is a class action brought by
the Plaintiff for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraud by
omission, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment due to
the Defendant's alleged misconduct.
The lawsuit arises from the Defendant's negligent, reckless, and/or
intentional practice of misrepresenting and failing to fully
disclose the heavy metal and/or perchlorate or other ingredients
that do not conform to the labels, packing, advertising and
statements of Defendant's baby food products sold throughout the
United States. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs have suffered actual damages in
that they purchased baby foods that were worth less than the price
they paid.
Gerber Products Company, doing business as Nestle Nutrition, Nestle
Infant Nutrition, and Nestle Nutrition North America, is an
American purveyor of baby food and baby products headquartered in
Florham Park, New Jersey.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Brown II, Esq.
John M. Bradham, Esq.
Peter B. Katzman, Esq.
MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP
444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 695-8050
E-mail: Tbrown@msbllp.com
Jbradham@msbllp.com
- and -
Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq.
Eric M. Poulin, Esq.
Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 614-8888
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
E-mail: roy@akimlawfirm.com
eric@akimlawfirm.com
blake@akimlawfirm.com
GREEN POGO: Adam Appeals RICO Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cindy Adam filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled Cindy Adam, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Frank V. Barone, Kirill
Chumenko, Green Pogo LLC (Delaware), Green Pogo LLC (New Jersey),
Natural Beauty Line LLC, Vegan Beauty LLC, Improved Nutraceuticals
LLC, Fortera Nutra Solutions LLC, Advanced Beauty LLC, SFLG Inc.,
Kurt Ellis, Defendants, Case No. 3-20-cv-10321, in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit
involves a form of fraud and cybercrime that has become
increasingly common across the Internet, known as the celebrity
free trial scam. These scammers, such as the Defendants, allegedly
entice consumers with fake celebrity endorsements, claiming that
well-known celebrities have either endorsed or created a new line
of cosmetics products in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The Plaintiff is seeking a review of the Court's Memorandum Opinion
and Order, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss the case.
The appellate case is captioned as Cindy Adam v. Frank Barone, et
al., Case No. 21-2092, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on June 8, 2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CINDY ADAM, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated
Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
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 -
Kevin M. Kneupper, Esq.
KNEUPPER & COVEY
4475 Peachtree Lakes Drive
Berkeley Lake, GA 30096
Telephone: (512) 420-8407
Defendants-Appellees FRANK V. BARONE, KIRILL CHUMENKO, GREEN POGO
LLC DELAWARE, GREEN POGO LLC NEW JERSEY, NATURAL BEAUTY LINE LLC,
VEGAN BEAUTY LLC, IMPROVED NUTRACEUTICALS LLC, FORTERA NUTRA
SOLUTIONS LLC, and ADVANCED BEAUTY LLC are represented by:
Joshua S. Bauchner, Esq.
Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq.
ANSELL GRIMM & AARON
365 Rifle Camp Road
Woodland Park, NJ 07424
Telephone: (973) 247-9000
E-mail: jb@ansellgrimm.com
- and -
Anthony J. D'Artiglio, Esq.
ANSELL GRIMM & AARON
1500 Lawrence Avenue
Ocean Township, NJ 07712
Telephone: (973) 925-7357
E-mail: ajd@ansellgrimm.com
GREIF INC: Suit Over Noxious Odor at Wisconsin Plant Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greif, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the company, together with Container
Life Cycle Management (CLCM), continues to defend a putative class
action suit in Wisconsin concerning one of CLCM's Milwaukee
reconditioning facilities.
On November 8, 2017, the Company, CLCM and other parties were named
as defendants in a punitive class action lawsuit filed in Wisconsin
state court concerning one of CLCM’s Milwaukee reconditioning
facilities.
The plaintiffs are alleging that odors from this facility have
invaded their property and are interfering with the use and
enjoyment of their property and causing damage to the value of
their property. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive
damages, along with their legal fees.
The Company and CLCM are vigorously defending themselves in this
lawsuit.
The Company is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Greif, Inc. produces and sells industrial packaging products and
services worldwide. It operates through four segments: Rigid
Industrial Packaging & Services; Paper Packaging & Services;
Flexible Products & Services; and Land Management. The company was
formerly known as Greif Bros. Corporation and changed its name to
Greif, Inc. in 2001. Greif, Inc. was founded in 1877 and is
headquartered in Delaware, Ohio.
HEALTHEQUITY INC: Deal in Suit vs. WageWorks Gets Initial Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
HealthEquity, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the court preliminarily
approved the settlement in the putative class action suit filed
against WageWorks, Inc., a company subsidiary.
On March 9, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. On May 16,
2019, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead
plaintiffs asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, against the Company's
subsidiary WageWorks, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and
its former Chief Financial Officer on behalf of purchasers of
WageWorks common stock between May 6, 2016 and March 1, 2018.
The complaint also alleged claims under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, arising from WageWorks' June 19, 2017 common stock
offering against those same defendants, as well as the members of
its board of directors at the time of that offering.
On February 11, 2021, counsel for all parties involved in this
lawsuit signed a term sheet to settle all claims for $30.0 million,
of which WageWorks will contribute $5.0 million and its insurers
will pay the remaining $25.0 million.
The $30.0 million settlement and related $25.0 million insurance
recovery are included within accrued liabilities and other current
assets, respectively, on the April 30, 2021 condensed consolidated
balance sheet.
On May 3, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement.
The settlement is subject to notice to class members and final
approval of the Court.
HealthEquity, Inc. is an American health care company that is
designated as a non-bank health savings trustee by the IRS. This
designation allows HealthEquity to be the custodian of health
savings accounts regardless of which financial institution the
funds are deposited with. The company is based in Draper, Utah.
HUNTER BUSINESS: Underpays Financial Aid Advisers, D'Angelo Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
DANIEL D'ANGELO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff v. HUNTER BUSINESS SCHOOL, INC. and JAY
FUND, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03334 (E.D.N.Y., June 14, 2021)
is a class and collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Financial Aid
Adviser between October 16, 2018 and March 1, 2021.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for a total of 42
hours per week from the beginning of his employment until around
March 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff's
weekly hours doubled to 80-90 hours per week because many people
who had lost their jobs became interested in pursuing vocational
training for new careers, and he had to do work of 2 advisers due
to fewer financial aid advisers available to help students navigate
the process. But, although he worked more than 40 hours per week,
the Plaintiff claims that he was not paid overtime wages for his
overtime hours both before and during the pandemic because the
Defendant classified him as exempt.
Hunter Business School, Inc. is a vocational training institute
organized under the laws of New York. Jay Fund is the owner and
president. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eight Floor
New York, NY 10011
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
IDT CORP: Discovery Ongoing in JDS1 Class Action
------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that discovery is ongoing in
the class action suit initiated by JDS1, LLC.
On July 5, 2017, plaintiff JDS1, LLC, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholders of Straight Path, and
derivatively on behalf of Straight Path as nominal defendant, filed
a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, The Patrick
Henry Trust (a trust formed by Howard S. Jonas that held record and
beneficial ownership of certain shares of Straight Path he formerly
held), Howard S. Jonas, and each of Straight Path's directors.
The complaint alleges that the Company aided and abetted Straight
Path Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Davidi
Jonas, and Howard S. Jonas in his capacity as controlling
stockholder of Straight Path, in breaching their fiduciary duties
to Straight Path in connection with the settlement of claims
between Straight Path and the Company related to potential
indemnification claims concerning Straight Path's obligations under
the Consent Decree it entered into with the Federal Communications
Commission ("FCC"), as well as the sale of Straight Path's
subsidiary Straight Path IP Group, Inc. to the Company in
connection with that settlement.
That action was consolidated with a similar action that was
initiated by The Arbitrage Fund. The Plaintiffs are seeking, among
other things, (i) a declaration that the action may be maintained
as a class action or in the alternative, that demand on the
Straight Path Board is excused; (ii) that the term sheet is
invalid; (iii) awarding damages for the unfair price stockholders
received in the merger between Straight Path and Verizon
Communications Inc. for their shares of Straight Path's Class B
common stock; and (iv) ordering Howard S. Jonas, Davidi Jonas, and
the Company to disgorge any profits for the benefit of the class
Plaintiffs.
On August 28, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
September 24, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which was ultimately denied, and which denial
was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
The parties are engaged in discovery. The trial is currently
scheduled for December 2021. The Company intends to vigorously
defend this matter.
IDT said, "At this stage, the Company is unable to estimate its
potential liability, if any."
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
IDT CORP: Settlement Agreement in Rosales Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
IDT Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2021, that the parties in the
putative class action suit initiated by Jose Rosales are now
seeking court approval of a settlement agreement.
On January 22, 2019, Jose Rosales filed a putative class action
against IDT America, IDT Domestic Telecom and IDT International in
California state court alleging certain violations of employment
law.
Plaintiff alleges that these companies failed to compensate members
of the putative class in accordance with California law.
In August 2019, the Company filed a cross complaint against Rosales
alleging trade secret and other violations.
The parties are now seeking court approval of a settlement
agreement.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
IDT Corporation operates primarily in the telecommunications and
payment industries in the United States and internationally. The
company operates in two segments, Telecom & Payment Services, and
net2phone-Unified Communications as a Service. IDT was founded in
1990 and is headquartered in Newark, New Jersey.
KAMLOOPS RESIDENTIAL: Settlement Reached on Class-Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
kamloopsthisweek.com 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
This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 9, 2021.
[GN]
LEGACY HEALTHCARE: Sykes Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY SYKES, on behalf of herself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LEGACY HEALTHCARE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, LLC, and ELMBROOK SKILLED NURSING FACILITY LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03190 (N.D. Ill., June 14, 2021) is a
class and collective action complaint brought against the
Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.
The Plaintiff worked as an hourly employee for the Defendants at
its Elmhurst, Illinois location.
According to the complaint, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff and
other employees an additional premium rate per hour called
"COVshftdf" and bonus called "COVBonus" to incentivize them to work
during the COVID-19 pandemic with exposed residents. However, the
Defendants did not include the additional incentives in their
regular rates for the purpose of calculating their overtime wages.
As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
were allegedly deprived of their full overtime wages at federally
mandated overtime rate.
The Corporate Defendants provide health care services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Kunze, Esq.
THE FISH LAW FIRM P.C.
200 E 5th Ave., Suite 123
Naperville, IL 60563
Tel: (630) 355-7590
E-mail: docketing@fishlawfirm.com
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Invasion of Privacy Exclusion Bars Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that the Eleventh Circuit held that an
invasion-of-privacy exclusion in an insured's policy barred
coverage and that Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc. did not have
to cover the $60.4 million settlement of a class action against
the insured, iCan Benefit Group LLC (iCan), for sending robotexts
in alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
exclusion for claims "arising out of" an invasion of privacy
applies because the class claim has a connection with the invasion
of privacy. The complaint doesn't have to allege the common law
tort of invasion of privacy to trigger the coverage exclusion.
The class action against iCan alleged that class members suffered
"actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, invasion of
privacy." After Liberty denied the request for coverage by iCan,
iCan and class plaintiffs settled for $60.4 million and payment of
that settlement was "not [to] be satisfied from or executed on any
assets or property of iCan, [but] shall only be satisfied from
Liberty." [GN]
LIVENT CORP: Awaits Court's Final OK of Deal in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Livent Corporation said in its Form 8-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filed on June 9, 2021, that the
company awaits the court's final approval of settlement in the
consolidated suit entitled, In re Livent Corporation Securities
Litigation, No. 2019-0501229
Beginning on May 13, 2019, purported stockholders of the Company
filed putative class action complaints in the Pennsylvania Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, and in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in connection with the
Company's October 2018 IPO.
On August 20, 2019, the actions then pending in federal court were
consolidated under the caption, Nikolov v. Livent Corp., et al.,
No. 19-cv-02218. In an order entered on September 23, 2019, the
actions then pending in state court were consolidated under the
caption, In re Livent Corporation Securities Litigation, No.
2019-0501229.
The operative complaints in both the state and federal actions
assert claims against the Company and certain of its current and
former executives and directors in connection with the Company's
October 2018 IPO. The actions also name as defendants the
underwriters in the IPO and FMC Corporation, whom the Company is
generally obligated to indemnify.
The complaints allege generally that the offering documents for the
IPO failed to adequately disclose certain information related to
the Company's business and prospects, in purported violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and/or 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaints seek unspecified damages and other relief on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Livent common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering
documents.
On October 11, 2019, defendants moved to dismiss the state action
in its entirety, and on November 18, 2019, defendants moved to
dismiss the federal action in its entirety. On June 29, 2020, the
state court denied the motion to dismiss the state action, while on
July 2, 2020, the federal court granted the motion to dismiss the
federal action in its entirety.
On July 7, 2020, in light of the federal court's decision,
defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the state court's
denial of the motion to dismiss the state action. On July 29, 2020,
defendants filed a motion seeking permission to appeal the state
court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss. On July 31,
2020, plaintiffs in the federal action filed a notice of appeal.
On October 27, 2020, defendants entered into a stipulation of
settlement with the state court plaintiffs to pay $7.4 million to
resolve all claims related to the IPO. On October 29, 2020, the
state court plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval
of the settlement.
Preliminary approval was granted on December 22, 2020 and the final
approval court hearing is scheduled for April 15, 2021.
Livent said, "If approved, the settlement would resolve all pending
litigation relating to the IPO, including the claims in both the
state and federal actions. All deadlines in the state and federal
actions are currently stayed in light of the settlement."
Livent Corporation is a lithium company. The Company is focused on
producing performance lithium compounds. Its primary products
include battery-grade lithium hydroxide, butyllithium and high
purity lithium metal. Its produces lithium compounds for use in
applications that have specific performance requirements, including
battery-grade lithium hydroxide for use in high performance
lithium-ion batteries. The company is based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
LONG BEACH, CA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Racial Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------------
ktla.com reports that one man was accused of stealing batteries.
Another served as the only Black manager among seven departmental
managers. One woman stayed in the same unclassified position, at
risk of losing her job at any moment, for 19 years. One was told
she was part of her department's "problem children." And another
saw her raise revoked because of an alleged mistake in salary
calculations.
These are the complaints of a group of Black current and former
employees of Long Beach who filed a class-action lawsuit against
the city, alleging a system of racial discrimination that held them
back in their jobs.
Christopher Stuart, Eric Bailey, Deborah Hill, Sharon Hamilton and
Donnell Russell Jauregui say the city has disproportionately kept
Black employees in lower-paying and unclassified positions,
rejected their requests for promotion and equal pay, and created an
"anti-Black culture" among city employees.
"Black city employees have been meeting behind the scenes for
years, literally years, and discussing this hostile work
environment, pay discrimination [and] promotion discrimination
among themselves, trying desperately to find a way to get ahead of
this," said Shauna Madison, one of the group's attorneys. "Finally,
this all has come to light." [GN]
LORDSTOWN MOTORS: Rico Consolidated Putative Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lordstown Motors Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues
to defend a consolidated putative class action suit entitled, Rico
v. Lordstown Motors Corp. et al., 21-cv-616 (N.D. Ohio).
On October 23, 2020, Diamond Peak Holdings Corp. consummated the
transactions contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger,
dated August 1, 2020, among DiamondPeak, Lordstown EV Corporation
(formerly known as Lordstown Motors Corp.), a Delaware corporation
("Legacy LMC"), and DPL Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation
and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company ("Merger Sub"),
pursuant to which Merger Sub merged with and into Legacy LMC with
Legacy LMC surviving the merger. On the Closing Date, and in
connection with the closing of the Business Combination,
DiamondPeak changed its name to Lordstown Motors Corp and Legacy
LMC became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.
Between March 18 and April 8, 2021, four related putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the company and certain of its
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio (Case Nos. 21-cv-616, 21-cv-633, 21-cv-720 and 21-cv-760),
asserting violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b)
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The complaints generally allege that the Company and individual
defendants made materially false and misleading statements relating
to the vehicle pre-orders and production timeline.
On May 13, 2021, a fifth putative class action was filed against
the company and certain current and former officers and directors
in the N.D. Ohio (Case no. 21-cv-994), asserting similar securities
laws violations as the first four class actions and that the
defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act by making
materially false and misleading statements relating to the Merger.
On May 14, 2021, a sixth putative class action was filed against us
and certain officers in the N.D. Ohio (Case no. 21-cv-1021),
asserting similar securities laws violations as the first four
class actions and that certain individual defendants violated
Section 20A of the Exchange Act through insider sales while in
possession of nonpublic information relating to the Company.
The court has issued orders consolidating these six class actions
under the case caption Rico v. Lordstown Motors Corp. et al.,
21-cv-616 (N.D. Ohio).
Lead Plaintiff motions are also currently pending before the court.
On April 28, 2021 and May 21, 2021, two stockholder derivative
complaints were also filed against certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company and DiamondPeak in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Delaware (Case Nos. 21-cv-604
and 21-cv-724).
These derivative complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of
the Company against certain defendants for violations of the
Exchange Act, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
insider trading, relating to the vehicle pre-orders, production
timeline or Merger.
Lordstown said, "We intend to vigorously defend against these
claims. The proceedings are subject to uncertainties inherent in
the litigation process. We cannot predict the outcome of these
matters or estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss, if
any."
Lordstown Motors Corp. designs and manufactures electric vehicles.
The Company offers electric light duty trucks, pickup trucks, and
other vehicles. Lordstown Motors serves customers in the United
States. The company is based in Lordstown, Ohio.
LOWA BOOTS: Pascual Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lowa Boots, LLC. The
case is styled as Domingo Pascual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Lowa Boots, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-05153 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Lowa Boots LLC -- https://www.lowaboots.com/ -- was founded in
1996. The company's line of business includes the wholesale
distribution of sporting and recreation goods.[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
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Skagit County Suit Tansferred to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Skagit County, on behalf of itself and similarly
situated counties and cities v. McKinsey & Company Inc. United
States, McKinsey & Company Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-00226-RSM was
tansferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 11, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-04513-CRB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Racketeer/Corrupt Organization for
the Racketeering (RICO) Act.
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 Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel P Mensher, Esq.
David J. Ko, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Matthew M. Gerend, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LAW OFFICE
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-1900
Email: dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
dko@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
mgerend@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Richard Alan Weyrich, Esq.
SKAGIT COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
605 S 3rd Street
Courthouse Annex
Mt Vernon, WA 98273
Phone: (360) 336-9460
Email: richardw@co.skagit.wa.us
The Defendant is represented by:
Ashley A. Peck, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP (UT)
222 S. Main St., Ste. 2200
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Phone: (801) 799-5913
Email: aapeck@hollandhart.com
MERCY HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Green Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA GREEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCY HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES, LLC, and
MAGAN ABRAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-01166 (N.D. Ohio, June
10, 2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendants to challenge its alleged unlawful
policies and practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the statutes of the State of Ohio.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from approximately
February 2020 to June 2021 as a home health aide.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated home health aide were required by the Defendants to work
substantial amounts of overtime. The Plaintiff regularly worked 45
or more hours each workweek. However, 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 more 40 hours per workweek. Instead, the Defendants paid
them their regular, straight time hourly rates for all hours they
have worked, the suit says.
Mercy Home Health Care Services, LLC is a home health agency
providing hourly home health aides as well as nursing care and
physical therapy. Magan Abraham is an owner and administrator of
the Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
The Caxton Building
812 Huron Rd. E., Suite 490
Cleveland, OH 44115
Tel: (216) 912-2221
Fax: (216) 350-6313
E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
MERIT LOGISTICS: Faulkner Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRACI FAULKNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERIT LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:21-cv-00222-JFB-MDN (D. Neb., June 14, 2021) brings this
collective action complaint seeking a declaratory judgment,
monetary damages and other relief as a result of the Defendant's
alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a Freight Handler
from September 2020 until June 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that he and other similarly situated employees
regularly worked over 40 hours in a week which they recorded on
paper and submitted to their team lead at the end of each pay
period. However, their team lead did not always enter all of their
hours worked into the Defendant's payroll system. As a result, they
were allegedly deprived of regular wages and overtime compensation
for all hours worked because some of their hours worked went
unrecorded and uncompensated.
Merit Logistics owns and operates a freight handling and warehouse
solutions business. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josh Sanford, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
Kirkpatrick Plaza
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AR 72211
Tel: (501) 221-0088
Fax: (888) 787-2040
E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
MOHAWK GROUP: Pomerantz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Aterian, Inc. fka Mohawk Group Holdings, Inc. ("Aterian" or
the "Company")(NYSE: ATER) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-05163, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Aterian securities
between December 1, 2020 and May 3, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased Aterian securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 12, 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.
[Click here for information about joining the class action]
Aterian purports to be a "technology-enabled consumer products
platform that builds, acquires and partners with e-commerce brands.
The Company's proprietary software and highly agile supply chain
helps creating for a growing base of data empowered e-commerce
customers. Aterian predominantly operates through online retail
channels such as Amazon and Walmart, Inc."
The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's
organic growth is plummeting; (ii) the Company's recent,
self-lauded acquisitions were overpayments for flawed assets from
questionable sources; (iii) Aterian's purported artificial
intelligence software is a flawed product that lacks customer
interest; (iv) Aterian uses rebate programs and paid or artificial
reviews to pump up their product offerings; and (v) as a result,
the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On December 1, 2020, the Company announced that it had acquired the
assets of "leading e-commerce business brands Mueller, Pursteam,
Pohl and Schmitt, and Spiralizer" from 9830 Macarthur LLC, ZN
Direct LLC, and Reliance Equities Group, LLC. On this news, shares
jumped from their December 1, 2020 close of $6.89 per share to a
December 2, 2020 close of $8.12, representing a one-day surge of
nearly 18%. Shares continued to soar, closing at $17.21 per share
on December 31, 2020, and eventually approaching nearly $49.00 per
share in mid-February 2021.
On May 4, 2021, analyst Culper Research published a scathing report
entitled: "Aterian (ATER): Bought from Felons & Fraudsters, Sold to
You." In this report, Culper wrote that "the Company has ties to
convicted criminals and is promoting what we believe is an
overhyped 'AI' narrative and a string of garbage acquisitions to
mask the failure of its already ill-conceived core business."
Culper continued that "Aterian has been largely unsuccessful in
convincing other Amazon sellers to pay for its 'AIMEE' AI platform,
and at least 5 former employees and a former customer have
expressed doubts regarding AIMEE's legitimacy. We think that
Aterian's underlying business has failed, forcing the Company to
obscure its poor performance with a series of questionable
acquisitions."
Culper further wrote: "[w]e believe that there are serious problems
with Aterian's claims to maintain strong organic growth and to
drive M&A synergies: to us, neither of these appears to be the case
. . . . In our view, this suggests not only that Aterian is unable
to growth EBITDA at acquired businesses, but that its core business
is also failing to produce."
On this news, the price of Aterian stock fell from its May 3, 2021
close of $20.66 to a May 5, 2021 close of $15.72 per share, a
two-day drop of $4.94 per share or approximately 24%.
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 [GN]
NAPA COUNTY, CA: Davis et al. Seek Correctional Officers' Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, KATINA DAVIS, JAE STEWARD, and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. COUNTY OF NAPA, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-at-00540
(E.D. Cal., June 14, 2021) arises from the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendant as non-exempt
Correctional Officers in the County jail system, allege that the
Defendant failed to compensate them and other similarly situated
correctional officers for all the time they have spent performing
duties. Specifically, since January 2017, they regularly completed
their 12-hour assigned shifts per day plus additional 30-minute
pre-shift and 30-minute post-shift duties. However, despite
regularly working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendant denied
them of 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
per workweek, the Plaintiffs claim.
The Plaintiffs bring this complaint, on their own behalf and other
similarly situated correctional officers, against the Defendant
seeking to recover a complete and accurate accounting of all back
pay compensation due and owing to which they were entitled and
monetary damages in the form of back pay compensation for unpaid
overtime, as well as liquidated damages equal to their unpaid
overtime wages, reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation costs and
disbursements, and other further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
County of Napa operates a correctional facility and/or jail. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew J. Gauger, Esq.
Kerianne R. Steele, Esq.
Tiffany L. Crain, Esq.
Abel Rodriguez, Esq.
WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
A Professional Corporation
431 I Street, Suite 202
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 443-6600
Fax: (916) 442-0244
E-mail: mgauger@unioncounsel.net
ksteele@unioncounsel.net
tcrain@unioncounsel.net
abelrodriguez@unioncounsel.net
NETFLIX INC: Fails to Pay Video Service Provider Fees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF EAST ST. LOUIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NETFLIX, INC., DISNEY STREAMING
SERVICES, LLC, APPLE INC., HULU, LLC, HOME BOX OFFICE, INC.,
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, CBS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, YOUTUBE, INC.,
CURIOSITYSTREAM, INC, PEACOCK TV, LLC, DIRECTV CORPORATION, and
DISH NETWORK SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-561 (S.D. Ill., June 9,
2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Cable
and Video Competition Law of 2007.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants evade their statutory
responsibilities and sidestep their obligations to pay video
service provider fees to Illinois cities, villages, incorporated
towns, and counties, rather than comply with the Act.
Accordingly, Defendants should be and are required by the Act to
pay each of those Illinois cities, villages, incorporated towns,
and counties a video service provider fee of up to 5% percent of
their gross revenue, as derived from their providing video service
in each unit. However, the Defendants have failed to pay the
required fee, thereby necessitating this action, and entitling
Plaintiff and the putative class to the relief requested in this
complaint.
The Defendants are video service providers in the U.S.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
CJ Baricevic, Esq.
CHATHAM & BARICEVIC
107 W. Main, Suite 1
Belleville, IL 62220
Telephone: (618) 233-2200
E-mail: cj@chathamlaw.org
- and -
John J. Driscoll, Esq.
THE DRISCOLL FIRM, LLC
1311 Ave. Ponce de Leon 6th Floor
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (314) 932-3232
E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
- and -
Roy L. Mason, Esq.
Zach E. Howerton, Esq.
SMOUSE & MASON, LLC
223 Duke of Gloucester Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Telephone: (410) 269-6620
E-mail: rlm@smouseandmason.com
zeh@smouseandmason.com
- and -
Marc D. Grossman, Esq.
Melissa K. Sims, Esq.
Greg Coleman, Esq.
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (800) 530-9800
E-mail: mgrossman@milberg.com
msims@milberg.com
gcoleman@milberg.com
dbryson@milberg.com
pwallace@milberg.com
OCUGEN INC: Rosen Law Discloses Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is
investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) resulting from allegations that
Ocugen may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Ocugen securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2107.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On May 26, 2021, Ocugen stated its plan to
submit an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for
COVAXIN(TM), a COVID-19 vaccine, to the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration ("FDA") in June 2021.
Then on June 10, 2021, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it "will no longer pursue an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN(TM)" but would instead "pursue
submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN(TM)." The Company's Chairman of
the Board, CEO, and co-founder further revealed that "[a]lthough we
were close to finalizing our EUA application for submission, we
received a recommendation from the FDA to pursue a BLA path[,]" and
that "this will extend our timelines[.]"
On this news, Ocugen's stock price fell sharply during intraday
trading on June 10, 2021, damaging investors.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar.
[GN]
OOMA INC: Chiu Class Action in Canada Underway
----------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class
action suit initiated by Fiona Chiu.
On February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action
complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal
Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and
Competition Act.
The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive
relief enjoining the Company to cease describing and marketing its
Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing
that it is free.
The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against this
complaint.
Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has
determined that the amount of any reasonably possible loss
resulting from the Chiu Litigation is not estimable.
Ooma, Inc. creates connected experiences for businesses and
consumers in the United States, Canada, and internationally. Ooma,
Inc. was incorporated in 2003 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale,
California.
OPERA LIMITED: Brown Putative Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Opera Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2021, for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2020, that the putative class action suit
entitled, Brown v. Opera Limited. et al., Case No. 20-cv-674
(S.D.N.Y.), has been dismissed.
In January 2020, the company and certain of its directors and
officers were named as defendants in a putative class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York: Brown v. Opera Limited. et al., Case No. 20-cv-674
(S.D.N.Y.).
The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company had made
certain material misstatements and/or omissions in violation of US
securities laws.
The Company announced its decision to vigorously defend itself from
these allegations and moved to dismiss the complaint.
On March 13, 2021, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, dismissing all of the claims on multiple grounds.
The plaintiffs in the action determined to forgo their right to
file a further amended complaint and instead stipulated to
dismissal of the litigation.
The case was dismissed with prejudice in an order entered on April
22, 2021.
Opera Limited operates as a web application development company.
The Company designs and develops web browsers for mobile phones and
PCs that enable Internet users to discover and access digital
contents. Opera serves customers worldwide.
PELOTON INTERACTIVE: ClaimsFiler Reminds of June 28 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuit:
Peloton Interactive, Inc. (PTON)
Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 5/5/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 28, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-peloton-interactive-inc-class-a-common-stock-pton-securities-litigation
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com [GN]
PREMIUM LINES: Abante Rooter Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Premium Lines
Insurance Services, Inc. The case is styled as Abante Rooter and
Plumbing Inc., Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premium Lines Insurance Services, Inc., Case No.
3:21-cv-04497-JSC (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.
Premium Lines Insurance Services, Inc. -- https://www.plisinc.net/
-- is in the Insurance Brokers, nec business.[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
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER: Plaintiff Seeks Extension of Class Cert Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATORRIE GLOVER-BROWN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
PROGRESSIVE PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF ILLINOIS, Case No.
1:21-cv-01251-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order for her to have through and including March 1, 2022, to
file her Motion for Class Certification.
The Plaintiff filed this class action on March 26, 2021
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Progressive
insureds who submitted covered first-party total loss claims, and
who were not paid the full motor vehicle title ad valorem tax due
under the polices and Georgia law.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 10, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3cEwlsv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher B. Hall, Esq.
Brittany A. Barto, Esq.
HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
400 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1150
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 876-8100
Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brandon D. Cox, Esq.
Taryn W. Harper, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
Terminus 200
3333 Piedmont Road NE, Suite 2500
Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (678) 553-2100
Facsimile: (678) 553-2212
E-mail: coxb@gtlaw.com
harpert@gtlaw.com
- and -
Karl A. Bekeny, Esq.
Jennifer L. Mesko, Esq.
Courtney E.S. Mendelsohn, Esq.
Smita Gautam, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, OH 44113-7213
Telephone: 216.592.5000
Facsimile: 216.592.5009
E-mail: karl.bekeny@tuckerellis.com
jennifer.mesko@tuckerellis.com
courtney.mendelsohn@tuckerellis.com
smita.gautam@tuckerellis.com
PURECYCLE TECH: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a lead plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. ("PureCycle" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: PCT) from November 16, 2020 through May 5, 2021 (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you purchased PureCycle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit PureCycle Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at
(877) 779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
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;
(iii) PureCycle's financial projections are baseless; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
Before the markets opened on May 6, 2021, Hindenburg Research
published a report on PureCycle entitled "PureCycle: The Latest
Zero-Revenue ESG SPAC Charade, Sponsored by the Worst of Wall
Street." Among the allegations in the report were that "PureCycle's
executives based their financial projections on 'wild ass
guessing,' brought companies public far too early, and had deceived
investors." The report also stated that Hindenburg was "unable to
find a single peer reviewed study in any scholarly journal citing
or reviewing PureCycle's licensed process," contrary to the norm in
the field. Furthermore, 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 from its May 5, 2021
closing price of $24.59 per share to a May 6, 2021 closing price of
$14.83, which represents a one-day drop of approximately 40%.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 12, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased PureCycle securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/purecycletechnologiesinc-pct-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-398/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired PureCycle Technologies, Inc.
("PureCycle" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PCT) securities between
November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
PureCycle investors have until July 12, 2021 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://bit.ly/2S6dAqG to participate.
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 PureCycle securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than July 12, 2021 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased PureCycle securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Cision View original content to download
multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-law-offices-of-frank-r-cruz-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-on-behalf-of-purecycle-technologies-inc-pct-investors-301309851.html
[GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kahn Swick Reminds of July 12 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of
pending deadline in the following securities class action lawsuit:
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (PCT) f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co.
(ROCH)
Class Period: 11/16/2020 - 5/5/2021 and/or were holders of Roth
securities entitled to participate in the March 16, 2021
shareholder vote on the merger with PureCycle.
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 12, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD, MISLEADING PROSPECTUS
To learn more, visit
https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqcm-pct/
If you purchased shares of the above company and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via
email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case link above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About KSF
KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General
Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique
securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -
including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money
managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment
losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded
companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.
[GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of August 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the American
Depository Shares ("ADS") of RLX Technology Inc. ("RLX" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RLX) from January 19, 2021 through June 9, 2021
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you purchased RLX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit RLX Shareholder Class Action
Lawsuit or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877)
779-1414 or Seidman@bernlieb.com
The complaint alleges that the Company's registration statement
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
material facts both required by governing regulations and necessary
to make the statements not misleading. Among other things, the
registration statement misrepresented and omitted that RLX knew (or
had information making if foreseeable to know), at the time of the
Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), that China was working on a
national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring them into line
with regular cigarette regulations. The complaint also alleges that
RLX knew that its reported financials were not nearly as rosy as
the registration statement made it seem, nor indicative of future
results. By omitting these facts, ADS purchasers were unable to
adequately assess the value of the shares offered in connection
with the IPO, and thus purchased their ADS without material
information and to their detriment.
When draft regulations were posted by China's Ministry of Industry
and Information Technology on March 22, 2021, the price of RLX's
shares suffered an enormous decline, closing at $10.15 per ADS,
down nearly 48% from its previous close of $19.46 per ADS.
Then, when the Company posted its first quarter 2021 financial
results on June 2, 2021, RLX's shares declined again, closing on
June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down nearly 9% from its June 3, 2021
close of $10.87 per ADS.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 9, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.
If you purchased RLX securities, and/or would like to discuss your
legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/rlxtechnologyinc-rlx-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-405/apply/
or contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
Seidman@bernlieb.com
Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. (C) 2021 Bernstein Liebhard LLP. The law firm
responsible for this advertisement is Bernstein Liebhard LLP, 10
East 40th Street, New York, New York 10016, (212) 779-1414. The
lawyer responsible for this advertisement in the State of
Connecticut is Michael S. Bigin. Prior results do not guarantee or
predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 9 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of investors that purchased RLX
Technology, Inc. (NYSE: RLX) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted on or about January 22, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering").
Investors have until August 9, 2021 to apply to the Court to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.
RLX Technology purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in
China," which it also claims is its "largest potential market." In
January 2021, as part of RLX Technology's IPO, defendants issued
approximately 116.5 million ADS to the investing public at $12 per
ADS, raising approximately $1.4 billion in gross proceeds.
The RLX Technology class action lawsuit alleges that the
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact
and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Among other things, the RLX Technology class action
lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement misrepresented and
omitted that RLX Technology knew (or had information making it
foreseeable to know), at the time of the IPO, that China was
working on a national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring
them into line with regular cigarette regulations. The RLX
Technology class action lawsuit further alleges that RLX Technology
knew that its reported financials were not nearly as rosy as the
Registration Statement made it seem, nor indicative of future
results. By omitting these facts and, for example, representing
that the risk of regulation was only a contingent possibility, the
RLX Technology class action lawsuit alleges that investors were
unable to adequately assess the value of the shares offered in
connection with the IPO, and thus purchased their ADSs without
material information and to their detriment.
On or about March 22, 2021, China's Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology posted draft regulations confirming that
e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to
traditional tobacco offerings. On this news, RLX Technology's ADS
price declined nearly 48%.
Then, on June 2, 2021, RLX Technology published its first quarter
2021 financial results, revealing a mere 48% increase in net
revenues quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance
suggesting that its gross margin would only "remain steady." On
this news, RLX Technology's ADS price fell an additional 9%. By the
commencement of this action, RLX Technology's ADSs traded more than
32% below the IPO offering price.
If you purchased RLX ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and
suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about
these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or
your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by
email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or
by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to
you.
About Bragar Eagel
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. [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 9 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE: RLX) ("RLX") on behalf of those who
purchased or acquired RLX American Depository Shares ("ADS")
pursuant or traceable to RLX's January 2021 initial public stock
offering (the "IPO").
Investor Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired RLX
ADS pursuant or traceable to the IPO may, no later than August 9,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/rlx-technology-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rlx_technology
RLX claims to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in China,"
which it also claims is its "largest potential market." On January
19, 2021, RLX filed its final amendment to a Form F-1 registration
statement (the "Registration Statement"), which registered
133,975,000 RLX ADS for public sale. On January 22, 2021, the
defendants priced the IPO at $12 per ADS and filed the final
prospectus for the IPO, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. Through the IPO, the defendants issued and sold
approximately 116,500,000 RLX ADS, all pursuant to the Registration
Statement, for gross proceeds of nearly $1.4 billion.
The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement
misrepresented and omitted, among other things, RLX's exposure to
China's then-existing campaign to establish a national standard for
e-cigarettes that would bring them into line with regular cigarette
regulations.
The truth was revealed when draft regulations were posted by the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, before the market
opened on March 22, 2021, eight weeks after RLX's IPO, which
confirmed e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated
similar to traditional tobacco offerings. Following this news, the
price of RLX's shares suffered an enormous decline. On March 22,
2021, RLX's ADS closed at $10.15 per ADS, down nearly 48% from its
previous close of $19.46 per ADS on March 19, 2021, the previous
trading day.
Then, on June 2, 2021 RLX published its first quarter 2021
financial results, announcing only a 48% increase in net revenues
quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance suggesting that
its gross margin would "remain steady." Following this news, RLX's
shares declined, closing on June 4, 2021 at $9.90 per ADS, down
nearly 9% from its June 3, 2021 close of $10.87 per ADS. Before the
commencement of the lawsuit, RLX's shares traded as low as $7.89
per ADS, or more than 32% below the IPO price.
RLX investors may, no later than August 9, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com. [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Portnoy Law Reminds of Aug. 9 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of RLX Technology, Inc. (NYSE: RLX)
investors that acquired shares in connection with its January 2021
initial public stock offering. Investors have until August 9, 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/rlx/ to join
the case.
RLX and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose, in its IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus,
material information violating federal securities laws.
The alleged misleading and false statements and omissions include,
but are not limited to, that: (i) RLX knew, or had information
making it foreseeable to know, that China was moving forward in its
establishment of a national standard for e-cigarettes, likely to
affect RLX performance; (ii) RLX's financials were not as strong as
projected in the offering materials, nor were they indicative of
future results; and (iii) RLX's statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times, as a result of the
foregoing.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 9,
2021.
Please visit our website to review more information and submit your
transaction information.
The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
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. [GN]
RLX TECHNOLOGY: Robbins Geller Discloses Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX) American
Depository Shares ("ADS") pursuant or traceable to the F-1
registration statement and related prospectus on Form 424B4
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with RLX Technology's January 2021 initial public offering ("IPO").
The case is captioned Garnett v. RLX Technology Inc., No.
21-cv-05125, and is assigned to Judge Paul A. Engelmayer. The RLX
Technology class action lawsuit charges RLX Technology, certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its IPO with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any
investor who purchased RLX Technology ADSs in connection with RLX
Technology's IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the RLX
Technology class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the RLX Technology class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the RLX
Technology class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in
any potential future recovery of the RLX Technology class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the RLX Technology class action
lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the RLX
Technology class action lawsuit, please provide your information
here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
Lead plaintiff motions for the RLX Technology class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than August 9, 2021.
RLX Technology purports to be the "No. 1 branded e-vapor company in
China," which it also claims is its "largest potential market." In
January 2021, as part of RLX Technology's IPO, defendants issued
approximately 116.5 million ADS to the investing public at $12 per
ADS, raising approximately $1.4 billion in gross proceeds.
The RLX Technology class action lawsuit alleges that the
Registration Statement contained untrue statements of material fact
and omitted to state material facts both required by governing
regulations and necessary to make the statements made not
misleading. Among other things, the RLX Technology class action
lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement misrepresented and
omitted that RLX Technology knew (or had information making it
foreseeable to know), at the time of the IPO, that China was
working on a national standard for e-cigarettes that would bring
them into line with regular cigarette regulations. The RLX
Technology class action lawsuit further alleges that RLX Technology
knew that its reported financials were not nearly as rosy as the
Registration Statement made it seem, nor indicative of future
results. By omitting these facts and, for example, representing
that the risk of regulation was only a contingent possibility, the
RLX Technology class action lawsuit alleges that investors were
unable to adequately assess the value of the shares offered in
connection with the IPO, and thus purchased their ADSs without
material information and to their detriment.
On or about March 22, 2021, China's Ministry of Industry and
Information Technology posted draft regulations confirming that
e-cigarettes and new tobacco products would be regulated similar to
traditional tobacco offerings. On this news, RLX Technology's ADS
price declined nearly 48%.
Then, on June 2, 2021, RLX Technology published its first quarter
2021 financial results, revealing a mere 48% increase in net
revenues quarter over quarter, and second quarter guidance
suggesting that its gross margin would only "remain steady." On
this news, RLX Technology's ADS price fell an additional 9%. By the
commencement of this action, RLX Technology's ADSs traded more than
32% below the IPO offering price.
With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion
– in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.comfor more information.
Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future
outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our
offices. [GN]
ROMAN HEALTH: Faces Costa Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SERGIO COSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROMAN HEALTH VENTURES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 7:21-cv-05180 (S.D.N.Y., June 10, 2021) alleges the Defendant
of violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent text message
solicitation to his cellular telephone number ending in 6517 on or
about February 8, 2021. Despite the Plaintiff's demand to cease its
unsolicited text messages, the Defendant continued to send two
additional text messages advertising its products on February 24,
2021 and June 1, 2021. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant
did not obtain his prior express written consent to send those
unsolicited text messages.
As a result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct, the
Plaintiff has suffered injuries including annoyance and disruption
to his daily life, as well as violation of the Plaintiff's legal
rights under the TCPA.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals who received
the Defendant's unsolicited text messages, seeking for actual and
statutory damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease
all unsolicited text messaging activity, and other relief as the
Court deems necessary.
Roman Health Ventures, Inc. designs and develops healthcare
software.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW, P.A.
20900 N.E. 30th Ave., Ste. 417
Aventura, FL 333180
Tel: (305) 610-5223
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and –
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
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE: Beach Glo Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Beach Glo Tanning Studio Inc. filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled BEACH GLO TANNING
STUDIO INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated
v. SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 3-20-cv-13901, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Nov. 11, 2020, the
lawsuit arises from the Defendant's denial of coverage for losses
caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Plaintiff purchased a policy of full coverage insurance issued
by the Defendants that would provide coverage for any kind of loss
of income. In March 2020, the Plaintiff was forced to close its
business pursuant to the closure orders of the state due to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have refused to cover
losses caused by the closure orders as part of business
interruption coverage. The Defendants have denied similar claims
submitted by other members located throughout the country. The suit
further asserts a claim against the Defendants for breaches of
their contractual obligation under common all-risk commercial
property insurance policies to indemnify the Plaintiff and others
similarly situated for business losses and extra expenses, and
related losses resulting from actions taken by civil authorities to
stop the human-to-human and surface-to-human spread of the COVID-19
outbreak.
The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Opinion and Order
dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.
The appellate case is captioned as Beach Glo Tanning Studio Inc. v.
Scottsdale Insurance Co, et al., Case No. 21-2096, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on June 8,
2021.[BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant BEACH GLO TANNING STUDIO INC, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Joshua S. Kincannon, Esq.
Kevin P. Roddy, Esq.
WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER
90 Woodbridge Center Drive
Suite 900, Box 10
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Telephone: (732) 636-8000
E-mail: jkincannon@wilentz.com
kroddy@wilentz.com
- and -
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS
2400 Freeman Mill Road
Greensboro, NC 27406
Telephone: (336) 333-9889
- and -
Brad Ponder, Esq.
MONTGOMERY PONDER
1015 15th Street N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (205) 606-6855
Defendants-Appellees SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO. and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE CO. are represented by:
Mark C. Errico, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
600 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
Telephone: (973) 848-5668
E-mail: mark.errico@squirepb.com
SIX FLAGS: Settles Lawsuit Over Fingerprint Use for $36 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
fox32chicago.com reports that Six Flags Great America has settled a
class-action lawsuit by agreeing to pay $36 million over the use of
fingerprint scanners at its Illinois theme park.
Pass holders and others who visited the Gurnee park between October
2013 and Dec. 31, 2018 could get up to $200 each, the Chicago
Tribune reported.
Six Flags was accused of violating an Illinois law that requires
companies to get permission before using certain technologies to
identify customers. The company denied that it was collecting
biometric identifiers and claimed visitors had given consent.
The Illinois Supreme Court in 2019 allowed the class-action case to
continue, saying the privacy law doesn't require someone to show an
actual injury such as identify theft.
A final hearing in a Lake County court is scheduled for Oct. 29.
Lawyers are seeking a third of the settlement for legal fees. [GN]
SKILLZ INC: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of the securities of Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle
Acquisition Corp. (NYSE: SKLZ, FEAC) between December 16, 2020 and
April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important
July 7, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline.
SO WHAT: If you purchased Skillz securities during the Class Period
you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of
pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.
WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Skillz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2093.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class
action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 7, 2021. A
lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.
WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the three games responsible for
a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined substantially; (2)
Skillz's revenue recognition policy misrepresented the Company's
financial condition; (3) Skillz had unrealistic market growth
projections, specifically in the Android market; and (4) as a
result of the foregoing, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.
To join the Skillz class action, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2093.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
SMART FOODS: Fails to Pay Account Managers' Wages, Ramirez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN MARCELO RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART FOODS INC. and DANIEL MUNOZ,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-12408 (D.N.J., June 10, 2021) brings
this complaint against the Defendants seeking equitable and legal
relief for the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey
Wage Payment Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an non-exempt
account manager from in or around 2004 until in or around July
2020.
The Plaintiff claims that throughout his employment with the
Defendants, he and other similarly situated account managers were
not afforded daily meal or rest breaks, were required to clock in
and out or otherwise record their hours, and were not compensated
at an hourly rate or salary basis. Despite routinely working in
excess of 40 hours per week, they were not paid overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
hourly rates or the applicable minimum wage for all of the hours
they worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant allegedly
compensated them at a rate that fell below the New Jersey State
minimum wage rate because of the Defendants' failure to pay them
for all the hours they worked.
Smart Foods Inc. is an importer and distributor of Argentinian,
Uruguayan, and Paraguayan, and serves customers throughout the
northeastern United States. Daniel Munoz exercises significant
control over the company's operation as an officer, director,
shareholder and/or person in control of the company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Grunfeld, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 460-0047
E-mail: ndgrunfeld@katzmelinger.com
UBIQUITI INC: ClaimsFiler Reminds Investors of July 19 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClaimsFiler, a FREE shareholder information service, reminds
investors of pending deadline in the following securities class
action lawsuits:
Ubiquiti Inc. (UI)
Class Period: 1/11/2021 - 3/30/2021
Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 19, 2021
SECURITIES FRAUD
To learn more, visit
https://www.claimsfiler.com/cases/view-ubiquiti-inc-securities-litigation
If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to
discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your
economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact
us toll-free (844) 367-9658 or visit the case links above.
If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you
must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion
deadline.
About ClaimsFiler
ClaimsFiler has a single mission: to serve as the information
source to help retail investors recover their share of billions of
dollars from securities class action settlements. At
ClaimsFiler.com, investors can: (1) register for free to gain
access to information and settlement websites for various
securities class action cases so they can timely submit their own
claims; (2) upload their portfolio transactional data to be
notified about relevant securities cases in which they may have a
financial interest; and (3) submit inquiries to the Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC law firm for free case evaluations.
To learn more about ClaimsFiler, visit www.claimsfiler.com. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Charter Boat Captains Win Class Action Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Karl Schneider at Naples Daily News reports that charter boat
captains in Southwest Florida and around the Gulf are now part of a
class action lawsuit against a federal agency over mandatory
electronic monitoring.
Last year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
marine fisheries created the For-Hire Electronic Reporting
Amendment mandating that charter and head boats with federal
permits needed to buy and maintain Global Positioning System units
while operating in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fishing charters would have to declare the type of trip each time
the boat leaves the dock including the expected return time and
landing location. Reports would also have to include information
about what was caught during the trip, what fees the captains
charged and the cost of fuel used.
A federal judge certified the class action June 2, and John
Vecchione, a lawyer with the New Civil Liberties Alliance
representing the captains, said about 1,700 people will now be
represented.
Vecchione and the captains he represents said the new reporting
requirements are an overreach by the federal government.
"The amount of information they are gathering 24 hours a day is
shocking," Vecchione said. "Regardless of who pays for the
monitoring, that is something Americans shouldn't tolerate."
More:Federal authorities offer $20K reward after 7 dead sawfish
found near Everglades City
NOAA estimates that each unit would cost captains between $150 -
$3,000 but the administration has not yet listed what equipment it
would require. Monthly service fees for the equipment could run
anywhere between $10-75.
Allen Walburn, a Naples charter captain and original plaintiff in
the suit, said the current cellular phone-based reporting system
boats use collects basically the same information and has the same
requirements but costs the captains nothing.
"Most government agencies are bound to use the least expensive,
least intrusive measure to garner the information they are
seeking," Walburn said. "Now, they're making us buy something
that's already free."
NOAA spokeswoman Allison Garrett wrote in an email to the Naples
Daily News that the administration does not comment on pending
litigation.
The monitoring rule is "expected to provide more timely catch,
effort, and discard information from federally-permitted for-hire
vessels, be used in future fish population assessments, and inform
management decisions," according to NOAA's comments in the Federal
Register.
NOAA's website also says the various ways it collects data through
surveys is an important contribution to the health of U.S. fish
stocks.
"The conservation and management of U.S. fish stocks rely on
accurate estimates of total recreational catch, which can only
happen with the support and cooperation of for-hire captains, crew,
and their clients," the site says.
Walburn also operates for-hire boats in Alaska, and says the
handwritten logbooks used there are an adequate way to report how
many fish are caught during trips. [GN]
UNITED STATES: NCLA Lawsuit Granted Class-Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------
The New Civil Liberties Alliance, a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil
liberties group, is defending the rights of more than 1,000 charter
vessel operators in the Gulf of Mexico. In a class-action lawsuit
against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
NCLA objects to unconstitutional and warrantless surveillance of
boating operations. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted NCLA's motion for class certification
and accepted an amended complaint in Mexican Gulf Fishing Company,
et al. v. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, et al.
The ruling ensures that all members of the class will benefit from
the Court's rulings on these privacy issues.
In July 2020, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the U.S.
Department of Commerce published a Final Rule requiring Gulf
for-hire vessel owners to submit electronic fishing reports "using
hardware and software approved by NMFS." The plaintiffs, charter
boat captains and companies that take customers fishing and
sightseeing off the coasts of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Texas, say that the rule is the regulatory
equivalent of an "ankle bracelet" (or anchor bracelet!) that
constantly monitors their businesses and personal lives. It
mandates that charter boat captains pay for and "permanently affix"
a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and allow the tracking device to
relay and store information at all times. Each captain must contact
NMFS every time the vessel leaves port-even if just crossing the
bay for dinner.
The Final Rule imposes technological and reporting requirements on
small businesses and confers virtually no benefit in monitoring
fish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico over cheaper, less intrusive
methods. There is zero evidence that written logs and weekly
reporting of fish reports countersigned by charter boat customers
are insufficient for the government's purposes. Further, the VMS
unit gives NMFS knowledge of the vessels' whereabouts 24 hours a
day, 365 days a year, thus forcing captains to divulge sensitive
proprietary information, including prime fishing locations that
captains have spent decades obtaining.
The forced use of VMS "anchor bracelets" violates the plaintiffs'
constitutional right to privacy by transmitting and archiving
locations when the vessels are used both for for-hire fishing and
purely private and nonregulated purposes. As the amended complaint
clarifies, NCLA is also challenging the aspects of NOAA's Final
Rule that require captains to divulge "charter fees, fuel prices,
amount of fuel used, number of paying passengers, number of crew,
[and] similar economic information." None of that proprietary
business information helps NOAA or NMFS track fishing stocks and is
being collected unlawfully. The Fourth Amendment protects a
person's possessory rights by forbidding the government from
trespassing without a warrant based on probable cause.
Additionally, the Final Rule infringes on the plaintiffs' freedom
of movement under the Ninth Amendment. In light of these
violations, the Plaintiffs seek permanent injunctive relief setting
aside the Final Rule.
NCLA released the following statements:
"The Court's ruling is welcome and allows all charter boat
operators in the Gulf to benefit from rulings by the Court in this
matter without the necessity of joining hundreds of aggrieved
parties. The government opposed this motion, but the Court's ruling
makes eminent sense given the wide-ranging impositions on charter
boats caused by the Final Rule."
- John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA
"Warrantless GPS surveillance of even a suspected criminal's
vehicle is indisputably unconstitutional. Yet, NOAA is mandating
24-hour GPS surveillance of countless boat owners for running
legitimate businesses. It does not take a legal scholar to spot the
constitutional violation."
- Sheng Li, Litigation Counsel, NCLA
For more information visit the case page at
https://bit.ly/3qdBjC4.
About NCLA
NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by
prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional
freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's
public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to
tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster
a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans'
fundamental rights. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS: Palade Files Certiorari Bid With Sup. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Philip Palade, et al., filed with the Supreme Court of
United States a petition for a writ of certiorari in the matter
styled PHILIP PALADE, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly
Situated; GREGORY BORSE, On Behalf of Himself and all Others
Similarly Situated; J. THOMAS SULLIVAN, On Behalf of Himself and
all Others Similarly Situated, Petitioners v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS SYSTEM; EDWARD O. FRYAR, JR., PH.D., In his
Official Capacity as Trustee; STEVE COX, In his Official Capacity
as Trustee; TOMMY BOYER, In his Official Capacity as Trustee;
SHEFFIELD NELSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee; C. C.
GIBSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee; STEPHEN BROUGHTON,
M.D., In his Official Capacity as Trustee; KELLY EICHLER, In her
Official Capacity as Trustee; MORRIL HARRIMAN, In his Official
Capacity as Trustee; MARK WALDRIP, In his Official Capacity as
Trustee; JOHN GOODSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee,
Respondents, Case No. 20-1698.
Response is due on July 8, 2021.
Petitioners Philip Palade, et al., petition for a writ of
certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eight Circuit in the case titled Philip Palade, et
al., Plaintiffs-Appellant vs. Board of Trustees University of
Arkansas System, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-1786.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on November 24,
2020. A timely petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc was
denied on January 4, 2021.
The question presented is: Whether the lower courts erred in
holding that Petitioners lacked standing to seek declaratory relief
concerning the retroactive application of newly-revised policies
concerning the grounds for dismissal and academic discipline to
faculty who are on the tenure-track and faculty who have already
earned tenure under prior Board of Trustees policies.
Petitioners Palade, Borse, and Sullivan represent tenured and
tenure-track professors for the University of Arkansas System whose
employment contracts were unilaterally modified without their
consent by The Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas. The
Board's alleged action in unilaterally modifying Petitioners'
contracts constitutes a present and immediate injury in violation
of Petitioners' rights pursuant to the United States Constitution's
Contracts Clause, Due Process Clause, and First Amendment. Further,
the significant constitutional issues raised by Petitioners' claims
reaches far beyond University faculty members and affects any party
who has a contract with a state entity. The complaint asserts that
the decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with
well-established principles of standing set forth in the precedents
of the Court and directly contradicts holdings of other circuit
courts. The rulings will negatively affect Professors across the
country who are battling bureaucratic systems to protect their
tenure rights specifically and academic freedom generally, as well
as all other natural and artificial persons who have contractual
relationships with any public entity across the country, says the
complaint.[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Petitioners PHILIP PALADE, On Behalf of
Himself and all Others Similarly Situated; GREGORY BORSE, On Behalf
of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated; and J. THOMAS
SULLIVAN, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated,
are represented by:
Joseph Wayne Price II, Esq.
Brittany S. Ford, Esq.
QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL PLLC
111 Center Street, Suite 1900
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 379-1700
Facsimile: (501) 379-1701
E-mail: jprice@qgtlaw.com
bford@qgtlaw.com
Defendants-Appellees-Respondents BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF
ARKANSAS SYSTEM; EDWARD O. FRYAR, JR., PH.D., In his Official
Capacity as Trustee; STEVE COX, In his Official Capacity as
Trustee; TOMMY BOYER, In his Official Capacity as Trustee;
SHEFFIELD NELSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee; C. C.
GIBSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee; STEPHEN BROUGHTON,
M.D., In his Official Capacity as Trustee; KELLY EICHLER, In her
Official Capacity as Trustee; MORRIL HARRIMAN, In his Official
Capacity as Trustee; and MARK WALDRIP, In his Official Capacity as
Trustee; JOHN GOODSON, In his Official Capacity as Trustee, are
represented by:
David A. Curran, Esq.
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
Office of the General Counsel
2404 North University Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72207
E-mail: dcurran@uasys.edu
VIAGOGO ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Suit Over COVID Ticket Refund Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke at completemusicupdate.com reports that Viagogo is
trying to stop a lawsuit filed over its COVID cancellation policies
in Florida from being granted US-wide class action status.
There have been a number of lawsuits regarding ticket refunds
during the COVID pandemic, of course. Disputes usually arise when
events are significantly postponed -- as they have been over the
last fifteen months -- and relate to whether or not ticket buyers
are due refunds, even if an event hasn't been officially cancelled.
The actual legal obligations of promoters and ticket agents vary
from country to country.
Though, whatever the rules say, things are always more complicated
when ticket touts and secondary ticketing websites are involved,
because there are more entities sitting between the event promoter
and the actual ticket buyer.
Viagogo was sued last year by Lauren Shiflett, who had bought
tickets for a COVID-affected Tool show via the site. Her lawsuit
stated: "Even though many thousands of events have been cancelled,
Viagogo wrongly refuses to classify events as 'cancelled' allowing
it to maintain dominion and control over . . . . funds which it
has no legal right to possess or use for its own business
purposes".
The lawsuit accused Viagogo of breach of contract and unjust
enrichment, as well as violations under Florida's Deceptive And
Unfair Trade Practices Act. It also sought class action status
within the state of Florida.
According to Law360, the secondary ticketing company previously but
unsuccessfully tried to have the lawsuit dismissed or at least its
class action status within Florida denied.
Then last month Shiflett sought to extend her litigation so to
represent a class of Viagogo customers from all over the US. In a
new legal filing, Viagogo presents an assortment of arguments as to
why the court should deny that request.
That includes the fact that Viagogo customers with tickets to
COVID-affected events have often been offered a voucher worth 125%
of the original ticket purchase, and the court would need to
identify which class members would prefer to take the voucher than
a cash refund. And also that Shiflett has not, it reckons, provided
sufficient analysis of the impact different state laws around the
US could have on the claims of any nationwide class.
"This court must perform a 'rigorous analysis' to determine whether
plaintiff met her evidentiary burden in demonstrating that class
treatment is appropriate", the ticket resale firm says in its new
legal filing, before boldly stating: "Plaintiff fails this rigorous
analysis". [GN]
WASHINGTON PRIME: Faces Cousinou Securities Suit in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
Jean-Marie Cousinou, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. Washington Prime Group, Inc.,
Louis Conforti, and Mark E. Yale, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-03431-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, June 9, 2021) is a class action
on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired WPG securities between November 5, 2020 and March 4, 2021,
inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, 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.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have allegedly
suffered significant losses and damages.
Washington Prime Group, Inc. is a self-managed and
self-administered real estate investment trust that owns properties
and conducts operations through Washington Prime Group, L.P. WPG is
the sole general partner and holds approximately 84.7% of the
partnership interests of WPG L.P.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Wagoner, Esq.
ROBERT J. WAGONER CO., L.L.C.
107 W. Johnstown Road
Gahanna, OH 43230
Telephone: (614) 796-4110
Facsimile: (614) 796-4111
E-mail: bob@wagonerlawoffice.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
WASHINGTON PRIME: Howard G. Smith Reminds of July 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law Firm Howard G. Smith Reminds future investors July 23, 2021
Deadline for filing plaintiffs' complaint in a proceeding filed on
behalf of an investor who purchased Washington Prime Group Inc.
("WPG" or "Company") (NYSE: WPG) securities November 5, 2020 And
March 4, 2021, Comprehensive ("class period").
Investors who are losing money on WPG investments are advised to
contact a law firm. Howard G. Smith To discuss their legal rights
in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com..
on February 16, 2021, WPG is the management partnership of
Washington Prime Group LP ("WPGLP") $ 23.2 million Deadline
February 15, 2021 Regarding WPG LP's Unpaid Senior Notes Maturity
in 2024, and WPG LP has a 30-day grace period to pay interest
before such defaults constitute a'default event' . . . At the
default event, certain counterparties in Senior Note "may
accelerate unpaid debt . . . . Due due date for such debt, and as a
result, some WPGLP or our others. There will be a cross-default on
the debt of. "
With this news, our stock price has fallen $ 4.59, Or ends at 38% $
7.49 Per share February 16, 2021, With an unusually heavy volume.
next, March 4, 2021, Bloomberg According to people with planning
knowledge, the WPG "is preparing for a potential bankruptcy filing
when there is no time to avoid defaults after skipping interest
payments on debt."
With this news, our stock price has fallen $ 3.77, Or 60%, close
with $ 2.51 Per share March 4, 2021, With an unusually heavy
volume.
The complaint filed in this class action not only made a materially
false and / or misleading statement by the defendant throughout the
class action period, but also disclosed materially unfavorable
facts about our business, operations and outlook. Claims not.
Specifically, the defendant did not disclose to investors: (1) The
financial condition of WPG has deteriorated significantly. (2) As a
result, there was substantial uncertainty about the Company's
ability to fulfill its capital structure obligations when the due
date was reached. (3) As a result of the above, Defendant's
positive statement regarding our business, operations and outlook
was substantially misleading and / or lacked reasonable grounds.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired WPG securities during the
class period, you may move to court at the latest. July 23, 2021
Ask the court to appoint you as the main plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. No action is required at this time to
become a member of a class action proceeding. You can retain the
lawyer of your choice or take no action and remain absent from the
class action proceedings. If you would like to know more about this
class action, or if you have any questions about this announcement
or your rights or interests in these matters, please contact us.
Howard G. Smith, EsquireOf the law firm Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by phone
(215) 638-4847, toll-free (888) 638-4847, or by email
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.comOr visit our website.
www.howardsmithlaw.com..
This press release may be considered a lawyer advertisement in some
jurisdictions under applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ZILLION CONCEPTS: Underpays Entertainers, Moore et al. Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEARA MOORE and LISA WEBB, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZILLION CONCEPTS, LLC d/b/a
RUMORS, and DAVID RASHMIR, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-02393-TWT
(N.D. Ga., June 10, 2021) bring this collective action complaint
against the Defendants to obtain full and complete relief and to
redress the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as entertainers.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs and other similarly
situated current and former entertainer employees of the Defendants
were classified by the Defendants as "independent contractors". At
all times for the three years prior to the filing of the instant
complaint, they were required by the Defendants to pay at least $50
per shift up to $100 depending on their arrival time, to pay $20
per shift to the "house mom" and $25 per shift to the "DJ". The
Plaintiffs also assert that the Defendants did not pay them any
wages, including overtime wages at the federally mandated overtime
rate, despite regularly working over 40 hours per week. Instead of
receiving any wages from the Defendants, the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated entertainers' source of work-related income is
gratuities they receive from customers, says the suit.
Zillion Concepts, LLC d/b/a Rumors operates an adult entertainment
nightclub. David Rashmir is the Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporate Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Paul J. Sharman, Esq.
THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM LLC
11175 Cicero Drive, Suite 100
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Tel: (678) 242-5297
Fax: (678) 802-2129
E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Navistar Int'l. Still Defends Exposure Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation, along with other vehicle
manufacturers, has been subject to a number of asbestos-related
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "In general, these claims relate to illnesses
alleged to have resulted from asbestos exposure from component
parts found in older vehicles, although some cases relate to the
alleged presence of asbestos in our facilities. In these claims, we
are generally not the sole defendant, and the claims name as
defendants numerous manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety
of products allegedly containing asbestos. We have strongly
disputed these claims, and it has been our policy to defend against
them vigorously. Historically, the actual damages paid out to
claimants have not been material in any year to our financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows. It is possible
that the number of these asbestos-related claims, and the costs for
resolving them, could become significant in the future."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3cIA4Fw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: S.C. Rejects J&J Appeal of $2.1BB Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------
Tucker Higgins, writing for CNBC.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court rejected an appeal from Johnson & Johnson seeking to undo a
$2.1 billion award against it over allegations that asbestos in its
talc powder products, including baby powder, caused women to
develop ovarian cancer.
The top court announced in an order with no noted dissents that it
will not hear the case. Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh
recused themselves from consideration of the case, according to the
order.
Johnson & Johnson had asked the top court to review the penalty
against it after the amount was upheld by the Missouri Supreme
Court last year. A state appeals court earlier reduced the penalty
against Johnson & Johnson from more than $4 billion.
The dispute featured fierce legal firepower on both sides, with
former acting solicitor general Neal Katyal arguing on behalf of
the New Brunswick, New Jersey-based pharmaceutical maker and Ken
Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor, representing women with
ovarian cancer who sued the company.
Johnson & Johnson said it stopped selling its talc-based baby
powder in the United States and Canada in May 2020, citing reduced
demand "fueled by misinformation around the safety of the product
and a constant barrage of litigation advertising."
The company had said that it is facing more than 21,800 lawsuits
against it over its talc products.
Starr wrote in his brief urging the justices not to review the case
that Johnson & Johnson "knew for decades that their talc powders
contained asbestos, a highly carcinogenic substance with no known
safe exposure level."
"They could have protected customers by switching from talc to
cornstarch, as their own scientists proposed as early as 1973. But
talc was cheaper and petitioners were unwilling to sacrifice
profits for a safer product," he wrote.
In contrast, Katyal argued that "federal regulators and respected
health organizations have rejected calls for warnings on talc, and
comprehensive epidemiological studies tracking tens of thousands of
talc users have found no meaningful association between cosmetic
talc use and ovarian cancer."
Katyal said that attorneys for those who had sued Johnson & Johnson
had searched the country "for women who were both diagnosed with
ovarian cancer and among the millions who used Petitioners' talc
products."
"They put dozens of plaintiffs on the stand to discuss their
experiences with cancer, and the jury awards billions of dollars in
punitive damages supposedly to punish Petitioners," he wrote.
"Lawyers can then follow this script and file the same claims with
new plaintiffs and seek new outsized awards, over and over again."
In a statement on Tuesday, Johnson & Johnson said that the Supreme
Court's decision left important legal questions unresolved.
"The matters that were before the court are related to legal
procedure, and not safety," the company said. "Decades of
independent scientific evaluations confirm Johnson's Baby Powder is
safe, does not contain asbestos, and does not cause cancer."
*********
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 ***