/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210705.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, July 5, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 127
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Greenfield Says
3M COMPANY: Bonar Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Gibson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
5-MINUTE EXPRESS: Caceres Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
A.H.D. HOUSTON: Roberts Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Forced Tip Sharing
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 9 Deadline
ALIERA COMPANIES: Class-Action Lawsuit Can Go Forward
AMERISURVEYORS LLC: Martinez Sues Over Surveyors' Unpaid OT Wages
ARKANSAS TEACHER: Court Vacates Class Cert. Order in Class Action
ARSTRAT LLC: Khaimov Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
ATHIRA PHARMA: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action Suit
ATHIRA PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: July 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' Wages, Hyneman Says
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Federal Antitrust Lawsuit in New Mexico
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
BOSTON, MA: Muehe Files ADA Suit in D. Massachusetts
CALAVERAS MATERIALS: Leon Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
CARMAX INC: Remains a Class Member in Ford Settlement
CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Tosses Linsday Bid to Certify Class
CARNIVAL PLC: Class Suits Over Covid-19 Outbreak Underway
CARNIVAL PLC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
CHAPLAIN TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Building Collapse
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 6 Deadline
CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Court Allows Bid for Conditional Class Cert.
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces EZ Mart Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
CORIZON HEALTH: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
DREYER'S GRAND: Zurliene Sues Over Ice Cream Bars' Deceptive Labels
ETORO USA: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Hunter Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Nelson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 2 Deadline
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Thornton Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Garcia Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arnold & Porter Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
GOOGLE LLC: More Settlements Paid Out in Nexus 6P Class Action
GR WIRELINE: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HARRELL HOSPITALITY: Bruno Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
HTX SERVICES: Dunson Sues Over Field Technicians' Unpaid OT Wages
IDEXCEL INC: Underpays Junior Java Developers, Rudraraju Alleges
ILLINOIS: Robocall Class-Action Suit Ends with $1M Settlement
IMCD US: Patriquin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
IMMUNOVANT INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims
IQVIA INC: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in Lyngaas Suit
JACK PARKER: Thome Files Suit in N.Y. App. Div.
JAMES FRANCO: Agrees to Pay $2.2M in Sexual-Misconduct Settlement
JOHN AND KIRA'S: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JUST ENERGY: Enrolment & Non-Payment Issues Related Suits Underway
JUST ENERGY: Supreme Court Junks Petition for Certiorari in Hurt
JUUL LABS: Dover School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, School District Claims
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
JUUL LABS: Liable to Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth in Ohio, School Alleges
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Cal.
JUUL LABS: School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Illinois
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Addiction Among Youth, School Says
KIDSEMBRACE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to August 30
KNICKERBOCKER CLOTHING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
LEDGER SAS: Chu Voluntarily Dismisses Claims
LEPRINO FOODS: Howell Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Workers
LIFE LINE: Underpays Health Service Coordinators, Laird Suit Says
LYONS DOUGHTY: Court Temporarily Terminates Bid to Certify Class
MARYLAND: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Benefits Termination
MARYLAND: Lawsuit to Stop Hogan's Decision to Halt Unemployment
MAXIMUS INC: Brickman Sues Over Customers' Info Unauthorized Access
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Cannon Township Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: BlueTEC Emissions Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective GLE 450 SUVs
MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Faces Pluviose Suit Over Shareholders' Vote
MHV PIZZA: Dean Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
MICHAEL KENNEWICK: Bid to Remand Class Suit to State Court Granted
MIGUEL ABREU: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MINIM INC: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Duty Breach Claim
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ruling Paves Way for Paying College Athletes
NETFLIX INC: Cities of Plano, Frisco Join Suit Over Franchise Fees
NOVUME SOLUTIONS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 30 Deadline
OCUGEN INC. Portnoy Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
PHE INC: Nardo Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
POSTAL FLEET: Fails to Pay Drivers' Proper Wages, Massie Alleges
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Review in ERISA Suit Decision Declined
PURECYCLE TECH: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 10 Deadline
QBE INSURANCE: Faces COVID-19 Class Suit Over Business Interruption
REKOR SYSTEMS: Kehoe Law Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Feds Seized CEO's Phone as Part of App Probe
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Preemptive Motion to Beat Securities Suit Filed
ROCKET COMPANIES: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SCOTT KUDRICK: Faces Class Action STR Suit Over Zoning Laws
SHREVEPORT, LA: Interest Added to Water, Sewer Usage Overcharges
STEAK N SHAKE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Suit Claims
STEMILT AG: Hearing on Garcia Bid to Certify Class Stricken
STG LOGISTICS: Zacarias Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Forklift Drivers
SWEET EARTH: Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
TARENA INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline
TC TRANSCONTINENTAL: Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
TODD BREMER: Michaud Files FDCPA Suit in D. North Dakota
TOTAL LIFE: Must Face False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
TRADE DESK: Chair Filed Unsworn Affidavit for Pension Fund Suit
TRANSUNION LLC: Maurice Wutscher Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
UNITED STATES: Class Action Cap Could Hurt NT Stolen Wages Case
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Settlement Class Wins Certification
VERMONT AGENCY: Gray-Rand Suit Removed to D. Vermont
VIKING CLIENT: Comer Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Villalobos Says
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumers' Info Breach
WANG HUYNH GROUP: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Foster Youth Class Action
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Montelongo Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Dispatchers
WIRELESS LIFESTYLE: DeMarcus Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
[*] ICA Urges Small Businesses to Submit Covid-19 BI Claims
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Greenfield Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
RANDY GREENFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; KIDDE 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, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-01922-RMG (D.S.C., June 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for negligence, strict liability, defective design,
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical monitoring trust,
and violations of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act and
California Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with kidney cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
BANNER LEGAL
445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 100
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (760) 479-5404
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Bonar Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BONAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01925-RMG
(D.S.C., June 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.
As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Gibson Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT GIBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company; ACG 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., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01926-RMG
(D.S.C., June 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with testicular cancer, the suit alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
5-MINUTE EXPRESS: Caceres Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CACERES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 5-MINUTE EXPRESS CAR WASH CORP. and
GURMINDER SINGH as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03563
(E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021) is a collective action complaint brought
against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from in or around June
2013 until in or around March 2021 to perform its primary duties as
a car wash worker, car cleaner, car dryer and other miscellaneous
duties.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 70
or more hours per week from in or around June 2015 until in or
around March 2021 during his employment with the Defendants.
However, the Defendants denied him his lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate
of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In
addition, the Defendants did not pay him "spread of hours" pay for
10 or more hours worked per day from in or around June 2015 until
in or around March 2021. Moreover, the Defendants willfully failed
to keep accurate payroll records, failed to post notices of the
minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place
at the location of their employment as required by the FLSA and
NYLL, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks all unpaid 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.
5-Minute Express Car Wash Corp. operates a car wash owned by
Gurminder Singh. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Tel: (718) 263-9591
Fax: (718) 263-9598
A.H.D. HOUSTON: Roberts Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Forced Tip Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
GRACE ROBERTS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. A.H.D. HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a CENTERFOLDS
HOUSTON, ALI DAVARI, HASSAN DAVARI, THOMAS VENZA, CHRISTOPHER
MALUSA, and KURT HOUSTON, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02101 (S.D.
Tex., June 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act including failure to pay
federal minimum wages and unlawful tip sharing.
The Plaintiff started to work as an exotic dancer at the
Defendants' club located at 6166 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas
from 2013 through February 2020.
A.H.D. Houston, Inc. is an operator of an adult-oriented
entertainment facility under the name Centerfolds Houston located
at 6166 Richmond Avenue, Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Hodges, Esq.
Michael Goldsmith, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dhodges@hftrialfirm.com
mgoldsmith@hftrialfirm.com
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: 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 has been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ACRX). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ACRX)
Class Period: March 17, 2020 to February 12, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company that focuses on the
development and commercialization of therapies for the treatment of
acute pain. The Company's lead product candidate is DSUVIA, a 30
mcg sufentanil sublingual tablet for the treatment of
moderate-to-severe acute pain.
On November 2, 2018, AcelRx announced that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") had approved DSUVIA for the management of
acute pain in adults that is severe enough to require an opioid
analgesic in certified medically supervised healthcare settings,
such as hospitals, surgical centers, and emergency departments.
On February 16, 2021, AcelRx disclosed that, on February 11, 2021,
the Company received a warning letter from the FDA concerning
promotional claims for DSUVIA. Specifically, having "reviewed an
'SDS Banner Ad' (banner) (PM-US-DSV-0018) and a tabletop display
(PM-US-DSV-0049) (display)," the FDA concluded that "[t]he
promotional communications, the banner and display, make false or
misleading claims and representations about the risks and efficacy
of DSUVIA," and "[t]hus . . . misbrand Dsuvia within the meaning of
the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and make its
distribution violative." The warning letter "request[ed] that
AcelRx cease any violations of the FD&C Act" and "submit a written
response to th[e] letter within 15 days from the date of receipt."
On this news, AcelRx's stock price fell $0.21 per share, or 8.37%,
to close at $2.30 per share on February 16, 2021.
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AcelRx had deficient disclosure
controls and procedures with respect to its marketing of DSUVIA;
(ii) as a result, AcelRx had been making false or misleading claims
and representations about the risks and efficacy of DSUVIA in
certain advertisements and displays; (iii) the foregoing conduct
subjected the Company to increased regulatory scrutiny and
enforcement; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
For more information on the AcelRx class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ACRX
About Bragar Eagel & Squire
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
ALIERA COMPANIES: Class-Action Lawsuit Can Go Forward
-----------------------------------------------------
Justin Gray at WSB-TV reports that a federal judge has ruled that a
class-action lawsuit can move forward against an Atlanta company
Channel 2 Action News has been investigating for more than two
years.
Aliera Companies has always maintained it is not an insurance
company. That's how it avoids following federal and state rules and
laws that governor insurers.
But a judge disagreed.
"It was great. It was going to save us about $350 a month," Deanne
Rhodes said.
Rhodes is just the latest Aliera customer to call Channel 2 Action
News with an Aliera horror story.
From a $325,000 bill for a 10-year-old brain tumor to big unpaid
bills for everything from heart surgeries to emergency room visits,
we've been investigating problems with health coverage through
Atlanta-based Aliera for more than two years.
"I called, and the response was, 'Well, we can't pay unless we have
money.' I said, 'Excuse me?' She said, 'We are not an insurance
company, we don't have a pool of money to pay from,'" Rhodes said.
But a federal judge in Atlanta, Amy Totenberg, just issued an
84-page ruling finding that "Aliera's plans are insurance under
Georgia law."
Aliera claims it's not an insurer but instead administers payouts
for a health care sharing ministry, Trinity Healthshare. Members
pay monthly and are supposed to share medical expenses.
But Totenberg ruled that's not true either, writing: "The court
holds that Aliera, Unity, and Trinity are not valid HCMs under
Georgia law."
"They have this little thing at the end of the deal that says we're
not insurance, and they think that print gets rid of their duty to
treat people fairly," Atlanta attorney David Walbert said.
Walbert has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of potentially
tens of thousands of Aliera customers.
Judge Totenberg's ruling allows that lawsuit to move forward.
Aliera had claimed all complaints had to be dealt with by
arbitration, not in a court of law.
Totenberg rejected that argument.
"No matter how illegal it is, no matter how bad it is, no matter
how unjust it is, if you got arbitration and that that arbitration
is enforceable, people are done," Walbert said.
We reached out to Aliera Companies. A spokesperson told us "despite
the judge's findings behind this procedural ruling, we remain
confident the underlying facts and the law are on our side and that
we will prevail when the ultimate merits of this case are
decided."[GN]
AMERISURVEYORS LLC: Martinez Sues Over Surveyors' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ADAN MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMERISURVEYORS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-00605 (W.D. Tex., June 24, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Portal-to-Portal
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant from on or about January
2018 until on or about July/August 2018 as surveyor.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated surveyors routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek for the Defendant. However, the Defendant deprived them of
their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over
40 during each and every workweek. Instead, they were only paid a
piece-rate, not on a salary or fee basis. In addition, the
Defendant failed to maintain and preserve payroll records which
accurately show the total hours worked by the Plaintiff and other
surveyors, the suit says.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover unpaid overtime
wages from the Defendant for himself and other similarly situated
surveyors. The Plaintiff also seeks liquidated damages, legal fees,
litigation costs, post-judgment interest, and other relief to which
he and other surveyors may be justly entitled.
Amerisurveyors, LLC is a full-service, professional land surveying
firm. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
Houston, TX 77046
Tel: (713) 621-2277
Fax: (713) 621-0993
E-mail: rprieto@eeoc.net
marbuckle@eeoc.net
ARKANSAS TEACHER: Court Vacates Class Cert. Order in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason M. Halper at mondaq.com reports that on June 21, 2021, the
United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System1, vacating a
decision of the Second Circuit that affirmed certification of a
securities fraud class action against The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Court directed the Second Circuit to consider the "generic"
nature of Goldman's alleged misrepresentations in assessing whether
Goldman had successfully rebutted the fraud on the market
presumption of reliance for purposes of plaintiff's claim under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
therefore, whether class certification is appropriate. In an
opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held that courts at
class certification must consider "all evidence relevant to price
impact," which is a prerequisite to invoking the
fraud-on-the-market presumption afforded to plaintiffs in an
efficient market, "regardless whether that evidence overlaps with
materiality or any other merits issue." Because the Second
Circuit's opinion left "sufficient doubt" as to whether it had
"properly considered the generic nature of the alleged
misrepresentations," the Court vacated and remanded the case to the
lower court. A 6-3 majority of the Court also held that a defendant
seeking to rebut the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance
(also known as the Basic presumption) bears the burden of
persuasion to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a
misrepresentation did not in fact lead to a distortion of the price
of a security.
The decision not only gives Goldman Sachs a renewed opportunity to
defeat class certification in this long-running class-action suit;
it also is likely to create a new front in the class certification
battleground. Most notably, Goldman clarifies that the materiality
of alleged misrepresentations is relevant to a showing of price
impact, and a defendant is entitled to introduce materiality
evidence to rebut the Basic presumption at the class certification
stage-a conclusion that many courts rejected following the Supreme
Court's prior decisions in Halliburton and Amgen. The decision's
emphasis on the "generic" nature of the alleged misrepresentations
in this case-and direction that the Second Circuit consider it in
reviewing the district court's class certification decision-may
lead to reversal of the district court's decision certifying the
class action. Finally, although preserving the Basic presumption,
Goldman confirms that plaintiffs and defendants are on nearly equal
footing in establishing whether the presumption applies (through
evidence of price impact or lack thereof), subject to a
preponderance of the evidence standard. Accordingly, the battle
over Basic-already one of the main events in securities
class-action litigation-is likely to grow even more heated in
Goldman's wake.
Background2
To obtain class certification, plaintiffs must satisfy the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including (for
any action seeking damages), a showing that "questions of law or
fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members."3 Ordinarily, plaintiffs
bringing a Section 10(b) claim would face a significant challenge
in meeting this "predominance" requirement: each putative class
member may have purchased the security for different reasons,
precluding a finding of predominance due to individualized issues
of reliance, one of the elements of a Section 10(b) claim.4
In Basic v. Levinson,5 however, the Supreme Court recognized the
"fraud on the market" theory of reliance that makes Section 10(b)
class actions possible: when a stock trades in an efficient market,
courts may presume that all investors rely on the integrity of the
market price as reflecting all material public information,
including any fraudulent statements. Where established, the Basic
presumption alleviates plaintiffs' need to show reliance on a
case-by-case basis, allowing adjudication as a class action. To
invoke the Basic presumption a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the
alleged misrepresentation was publicly known; (2) it was material
(i.e., significant to a "reasonable investor"); (3) the stock
traded in an efficient market; and (4) the plaintiff traded the
stock between the time the misrepresentation was made and when the
truth was revealed.6 These preliminary showings serve, at the class
certification stage, as an "indirect proxy" for establishing that
alleged misrepresentations affected stock price, i.e., "price
impact."7
Once plaintiffs have made this threshold showing, a defendant can
rebut the presumption by demonstrating "that the misrepresentation
in fact did not lead to a distortion of price," which may be
accomplished by any showing that "severs the link" between the
alleged misrepresentation and either the price paid by plaintiffs
or their decision to trade at that price.8 For example, a defendant
could rebut the presumption by showing that "the alleged
misrepresentation did not, for whatever reason, actually affect the
market price"-in other words, an absence of "price impact."9 As the
Supreme Court has explained, there is no reason for a court to
limit its review to indirect evidence of price impact adduced by
the plaintiff seeking to invoke the Basic presumption; defendants
may seek to rebut the presumption "through direct as well as
indirect price impact evidence."10
Case History
This dispute dates back to 2010, when shareholders brought a
putative class action against Goldman and certain of its executives
in the Southern District of New York asserting claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs alleged that, between 2006 and
2010, Goldman made misrepresentations concerning its procedures for
managing conflicts of interest-including "[w]e have extensive
procedures and controls that are designed to . . . address
conflicts of interest" and "[i]ntegrity and honesty are at the
heart of our business."11 According to plaintiffs, the statements
were fraudulent because Goldman had conflicts of interest with
respect to collateralized debt obligations it sold in 2006 and
2007. Plaintiffs relied on the inflation-maintenance theory,
alleging that Goldman's prior statements regarding its controls
artificially maintained an inflated stock price and that
announcements of an SEC enforcement action and investigations
constituted corrective disclosures.
The plaintiffs moved to certify a class of investors who purchased
Goldman stock between 2007 and 2010, invoking the Basic
presumption. The district court initially certified the class.12 On
interlocutory appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the district
court's order, holding that the lower court failed to apply the
proper preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in determining
whether Goldman had rebutted the Basic presumption, and failed to
consider some of Goldman's evidence regarding the absence of price
impact.13 On remand, the district court weighed both parties'
expert testimony and fact evidence and concluded that Goldman had
failed to rebut the Basic presumption by a preponderance of the
evidence.14 Once again on appeal to the Second Circuit, a divided
panel affirmed.15 The majority rejected Goldman's argument that the
alleged misstatements were too general to maintain price inflation
in an issuer's stock, characterizing Goldman's arguments as "really
a means for smuggling materiality into Rule 23," and concluding
that "[w]hile Goldman's test might weed out potentially
unmeritorious claims, Rule 23 is not a weed whacker for merits
problems."16 In dissent, Judge Sullivan criticized the majority for
failing to consider the generic nature of the alleged misstatements
in assessing whether the statements affected the market price:
"Candidly, I don't see how a reviewing court can ignore the alleged
misrepresentations when assessing price impact."17 On December 11,
2020, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court's Decision
Before the Supreme Court, Goldman challenged the Second Circuit's
decision on two grounds: first, that the Second Circuit incorrectly
held that the generic nature of Goldman's alleged misstatements was
irrelevant to whether defendants successfully rebutted the Basic
presumption by showing a lack of price impact; and second, that the
court improperly assigned defendants the burden of persuasion of
proving lack of price impact.
The "Generic" Nature of the Alleged Misstatements
Regarding the first issue, the Court recognized that the parties'
dispute had "largely evaporated," with both sides conceding that
district courts may consider the generic nature of alleged
misstatements as relevant to the assessment of price impact at
class certification.18 The Court agreed, stating that courts
"should be open to all probative evidence," even if that "evidence
is also relevant to a merits question like materiality."19 The
Court explained that while "materiality and price impact are
overlapping concepts and that the evidence relevant to one will
almost always be relevant to the other," district courts "may not
use the overlap to refuse to consider the evidence" at class
certification.20 Furthermore, the Court recognized that the
"generic nature of a misrepresentation often will be important
evidence of a lack of price impact," especially in cases where
plaintiffs rely on the inflation-maintenance theory. Where an
earlier misrepresentation is generic, but the later corrective
disclosure is specific, "it is less likely that the specific
disclosure actually corrected the generic misrepresentation, which
means that there is less reason to infer front-end price
inflation-that is, price impact-from the back-end price drop."21
The Court held that the Second Circuit's opinion had left
"sufficient doubt" about whether it had "properly considered the
generic nature of the Goldman's alleged misrepresentations."22 The
Court remanded in order for the Second Circuit to "take into
account all record evidence relevant to price impact, regardless
whether that evidence overlaps with materiality or any other merits
issues."23
The Burden of Persuasion
On the second issue, Goldman argued that, under Federal Rule of
Evidence 301, plaintiffs should have borne the burden of persuasion
on price impact because, once defendants produced some evidence of
lack of price impact, the rule does "not shift the burden of
persuasion, which remains on the party who had it originally."24
The Court rejected the argument as contrary to Basic and
Halliburton II, which were a "clear departure from [the] general
rule" that "presumptions shift only the burden of production."25
The Court explained that, in those cases, it made clear that
defendants may rebut the presumption if they "show that the
misrepresentation in fact did not lead to a distortion of price" by
making "[a]ny showing that severs the link between the alleged
misrepresentation and . . . the price received (or paid) by the
plaintiff."26 The Court interpreted this precedent as having
exercised the Court's authority under Rule 301 to change the
customary burdens of persuasion to reassign the burden of
persuasion to the defendant to prove a lack of price impact upon a
prima facie showing by the plaintiff.27
Dissenting on this issue, Justice Gorsuch-joined by Justices Thomas
and Alito-argued that the Basic presumption should operate like
most other presumptions: while the burden of production may shift,
the burden of persuasion remains on the party who had it
originally, i.e., plaintiffs.28 Justice Gorsuch disputed the
majority's interpretation of Basic and Halliburton II, arguing that
"nothing in our prior decisions has ever placed a burden of
persuasion on the defendant with respect to any aspect of the
plaintiff 's case."29 The majority disagreed with Justice Gorsuch's
interpretation of the Court's precedent, explaining that the
language in those cases imposed more than a mere production burden
on defendants. Moreover, to hold otherwise would "effectively
negate Halliburton II 's holding that plaintiffs need not directly
prove price impact in order to invoke the Basic presumption": if a
"defendant could defeat Basic's presumption by introducing any
competent evidence of a lack of price impact-including, for
example, the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations-then
the plaintiff would end up with the burden of directly proving
price impact in almost every case."30
Finally, the Court downplayed the significance of its holding on
the burden of persuasion. The Court observed that in any event, the
"allocation of the burden is unlikely to make much difference on
the ground" because the district court's task is "simply to assess
all the evidence of price impact."31 Where both parties submit
expert evidence on price impact, the Court explained, the burden of
persuasion will "have bite" only when the district court finds the
parties' evidence to be "in equipoise-a situation that should
rarely arise."32
Implications
On the surface, the Court's holdings appear muted-affirming the
Second Circuit's decision on one issue, and vacating and remanding
for further consideration on the other. In fact, Goldman addresses
several issues of considerable significance to securities
litigants, including opening up a revitalized materiality-based
defense for defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption at
the class certification stage.
Materiality Is Back at Class Certification. A frequent point of
contention in securities fraud cases is whether a misstatement or
omission is material-that is, whether it would be "viewed by the
reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix'
of information made available."33 Materiality, furthermore, is one
of the threshold requirements for the Basic presumption; a
misrepresentation that is immaterial by definition would have no
"price impact."34 Nevertheless, following the trilogy of Supreme
Court decisions in Halliburton I (2011), Amgen (2013), and
Halliburton II (2014), courts typically did not permit defendants
to argue materiality at class certification, including prohibiting
the introduction of evidence relevant to materiality even if also
directed at rebutting the Basic presumption at the class
certification stage. The Amgen Court held that "materiality need
not be proved prior to Rule 23(b)(3) class certification" because
"a failure of proof on the issue of materiality . . . does not give
rise to any prospect of individual questions overwhelming common
ones,"35 a view the Court reaffirmed in Halliburton II.36 Numerous
courts, including the Second Circuit, took these decisions at their
word, holding flatly that "materiality . . . is not an appropriate
consideration at the class certification stage"37 and the Basic
presumption "may not be indirectly rebutted by showing that the
misrepresentation was immaterial."38
Goldman clarifies that Halliburton II and Amgen should not be
construed as absolute prohibitions on the introduction of price
impact evidence at class certification even if "the evidence is
also relevant to a merits question like materiality."39 Rather,
courts "should be open to all probative evidence." Indeed, the
Court recognized that materiality and price impact are "overlapping
concepts," "evidence relevant to one will almost always be relevant
to the other," and "a district court may not use the overlap to
refuse to consider the evidence."40 In other words, it remains true
after Goldman that a defendant cannot directly argue that a
statement was immaterial in seeking to defeat class certification;
the Court's holding in Amgen to that effect remains good law.
However, given its relevance to the price impact inquiry, a
defendant may introduce the same evidence and argument for the
purpose of severing the link between the alleged misrepresentation
and the stock price.
The Court's holding is a significant win for Section 10(b)
defendants. For almost a decade defendants have been barred from
arguing materiality in attempting to rebut the Basic presumption,
having to rest their case on statistical evidence such as "event
studies" that purport to show lack of price impact. Now, however,
materiality is sure to be a prime battleground. Following Goldman,
we expect that defendants will argue routinely at the class
certification stage that-in addition to statistical evidence-the
nature of alleged misrepresentations defeats any inference of price
impact. How courts handle these Goldman-based arguments-and whether
this turns out to be a boon for securities defendants-remains to be
seen.
Is Goldman a Stealth Reversal? Technically, the Court only vacated
the Second Circuit's decision so that it may consider all record
evidence relevant to price impact, including the generic nature of
the alleged misrepresentations; it did not express a view on how
the Second Circuit should resolve the matter.41 Nevertheless, it is
difficult to escape the conclusion that the majority was skeptical
of the lower court's decision to certify the class. The majority
quoted, for example, Judge Sullivan's dissent, where he concluded
that "'the generic quality of Goldman's alleged misstatements,
coupled with' Goldman's expert testimony, compelled the conclusion
that Goldman proved a lack of price impact."42 Further, the Court
repeatedly characterized the alleged misstatements pled by the
plaintiffs as "generic" in nature.43 And the Court opined that "the
generic nature of a misrepresentation often will be important
evidence of a lack of price impact," particularly in cases such as
this one based on inflation-maintenance theory.44 That is because a
necessary predicate is that the price drop equals the amount of
inflation created by an earlier misrepresentation-an inference that
"starts to break down" when "the earlier misrepresentation is
generic" and "the later corrective disclosure is specific."45
Courts May Assess the Significance of "General" or "Aspirational"
Statements Using "All Evidence," Including Both Expert Testimony
and Their Own Intuition. In their briefing before the Supreme
Court, plaintiffs emphasized that while materiality turns on
whether an alleged misstatement would have been considered
significant by a reasonable investor, price impact is an
"empirical, context-dependent question," and thus must be
determined by a court's weighing of expert testimony-not the
court's own "intuition."46 In contrast, Goldman argued that courts
should not be required to "set aside common sense in addressing the
Basic presumption" and turn a blind eye to the "simple" wisdom that
the more generic a challenged statement, the less likely it is to
have affected the price of a stock.47 The Goldman opinion now makes
clear that courts "may consider expert testimony and use their
common sense in assessing whether a generic misrepresentation had a
price impact," and indeed "'should be open to all probative
evidence on that question-qualitative as well as quantitative-aided
by a good dose of common sense.'"48
Not a Ringing Endorsement of the Inflation-Maintenance Theory.
Although accepting plaintiffs' inflation-maintenance theory for the
purpose of the decision, the Court made a point that it "has
expressed no view on its validity or its contours" and "[w]e need
not and do not do so in this case."49 Unlike a traditional fraud
case, where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant's
misstatements introduced inflation into a company's stock price, an
inflation-maintenance theory hinges on "statements that merely
maintain inflation already extant in a company's stock price, but
do not add to that inflation."50 Price impact, in turn, is shown
when a corrective disclosure causes the artificial inflation to
dissipate and the stock price to fall.51 Class-action plaintiffs
have increasingly relied on the inflation maintenance theory; one
estimate found that plaintiffs invoked inflation maintenance in 71%
of recent district court cases involving the Basic presumption, and
have successfully established price impact in all of those cases.52
While lower courts have widely approved of the theory-including
endorsements by the Second, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits53-some
district courts have expressed skepticism of the theory as unduly
speculative.54 The Supreme Court's refusal to take a definitive
stand in Goldman means that debate over the propriety of
inflation-maintenance theory and its specific contours will
continue to percolate in the lower courts.
The Court Preserves the Basic Presumption-at Least for Now. Goldman
holds that, to rebut the Basic presumption, the defendant "bears
the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact" and "must
carry that burden by a preponderance of the evidence."55 In what
Justice Gorsuch describes in dissent as a "curious disavowal," the
majority attempts to downplay the significance of this holding,
explaining that in most cases the parties will submit competing
evidence on price impact and the court will assess the evidence and
"determine whether it is more likely than not that the
misrepresentations had a price impact."56 The burden of persuasion
will only "bite" when the court finds the evidence in "equipoise"-a
situation that "should rarely arise."57
But in adopting this rule, the Court makes clear that the Basic
presumption is no ordinary presumption. As Justice Gorsuch
explains, presumptions typically evaporate upon the opposing
party's production of evidence that, if "taken as true," would
"permit the conclusion" that the presumption in plaintiff's favor
is "mistaken."58 Applied here, that means all a defendant would
have to do to rebut the Basic presumption would be to produce "any
competent evidence of a lack of price impact,"59 at which point the
presumption would "drop from the case" and the "trier of fact"
would proceed to "decide the ultimate question."60 In rejecting
such an approach, under the rule adopted by the majority, the Basic
presumption acts more like an evidentiary standard on price
impact-tilted ever so slightly in favor of plaintiffs-rather than a
"presumption" in any traditional sense.
The Basic presumption has been subject to significant criticism
since it was first articulated in 1988. Indeed, Justices Thomas and
Alito-who joined Justice Gorsuch's dissent in Goldman-have
previously called for abrogation of the rule, explaining that the
"view of market efficiency" embodied in Basic "has since lost its
luster."61 Rather, "even 'well-developed' markets (like the New
York Stock Exchange) do not uniformly incorporate information into
market prices with high speed."62 To date, the Court has refused to
overrule Basic. Nevertheless, and perhaps in tacit recognition of
these critiques, the Court now gives plaintiffs and defendants
almost equal footing in proving or disproving the validity of the
presumption in a given case. In the wake of Goldman, the battle
over Basic is certain to remain a critical and fiercely contested
event in putative securities class actions.
Footnotes
1 Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys., No. 20-222,
594 U.S. ___ (2021).
2 For a full discussion of the relevant background, see our Clients
& Friends Memo previewing the case: Supreme Court to Weigh in on
Presumption of Reliance in Securities Class Actions: Goldman Sachs
v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System.
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).
4 Goldman, slip op. at 4 (citing Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans &
Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 462-63 (2013); Halliburton Co. v. Erica P.
John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), 573 U.S. 258, 281-82 (2014)).
5 485 U.S. 224, 225 (1988).
6 Goldman, slip op. at 3 (citing Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 268).
The Court has held, however, that materiality need not be proven at
class certification, which, as interpreted by lower courts,
effectively absolved plaintiffs of directly demonstrating price
impact at class certification. See Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 282
("Even though materiality is a prerequisite for invoking the Basic
presumption, we held that it should be left to the merits stage,
because it does not bear on the predominance requirement of Rule
23(b)(3).").
7 Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 281.
8 Id. at 269 (citing Basic, 485 U.S. at 248).
9 Id.
10 Id. at 283. In Halliburton II, the Court explained that "an
indirect proxy should not preclude . . . a defendant's direct, more
salient evidence showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not
actually affect the stock's market price and, consequently, that
the Basic presumption does not apply." Id. at 281-82.
11 In re Goldman Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 10 Civ. 3461 (PAC),
2015 WL 5613150, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2015).
12 em> Id. at *8.
13 Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (ATRS I),
879 F.3d 474, 484-85 (2d Cir. 2018).
14 In re Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 10 CIV. 3461
(PAC), 2018 WL 3854757, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 2018).
15 Ark. Teachers Ret. Sys. v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (ATRS II),
955 F.3d 254 (2d Cir. 2020).
16 Id. at 267-68.
17 Id. at 278 (Sullivan, J., dissenting).
18 Goldman, slip op. at 6-7.
19 Id. at 7.
20 Id. at 7 n.2 (quoting In re Allstate Corp. Sec. Litig., 966 F.3d
595, 613 n.6 (7th Cir. 2020)).
21 Id. at 8.
22 Id. at 8-9.
23 Id. at 9. Justice Sotomayor-who at oral argument observed that
it was perhaps time to let the class certification stage of the
case finally "die"-wrote separately that while she agreed with the
Court's answers to the questions presented, she dissented from the
Court's judgment to vacate because she believes the Second Circuit
properly considered the generic nature of Goldman's alleged
misrepresentations, and "nothing in the Second Circuit's opinion
misstates the law." Id. at 1-4 (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part
and dissenting in part).
24 Petitioners' Br. 39 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 301).
25 Goldman, slip op. at 11 n.4.
26 Id. at 10.
27 Id. Rule 301 by its terms applies "unless a federal statute . .
. provide[s] otherwise." The Court explained that in Halliburton II
and Amgen, the Court exercised its authority to assign defendants
the burden of persuasion "in establishing the Basic framework
pursuant to the securities laws." Goldman, slip op. at 10.
28 Id. at 3 (Gorsuch, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part).
29 Id. at 9 (opinion of the Court).
30 Id. at 11.
31 Id. at 11-12.
32 Id. at 12.
33 Basic, 485 U.S. at 231-32 (quoting TSC Indus., Inc. v. Northway,
Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449 (1976)).
34 See Amgen, 568 U.S. 474.
35 Id.
36 See Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 282.
37 ATRS I, 879 F.3d at 486.
38 Aranaz v. Catalyst Pharm. Partners Inc., 302 F.R.D. 657, 670
(S.D. Fla. 2014).
39 Goldman, slip op. at 7 (quoting Allstate Corp., 966 F.3d at 613
n.6).
40 Id. at 7 n.2.
41 Id. at 8-9.
42 Id. at 6 (quoting ATRS II, 955 F.3d at 278-79 (Sullivan, J.,
dissenting)).
43 Id. at 1, 2, 3, 8-9.
44 Id. at 2.
45 Id. at 8.
46 Appellants' Br. 16.
47 Petitioners' Br. 27.
48 Goldman, slip op. at 7 (quoting Allstate Corp., 966 F.3d at 613
n.6).
49 Id. at 5 n.1.
50 Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79, 104 (2d Cir. 2017); see
also In re Vivendi, S.A. Sec. Litig., 838 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016).
51 In re Chi. Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec. Litig., No. 17-1580, 2019
WL 5287980, at *21 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2019).
52 See Note, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Rise of
Securities-Fraud Class Actions, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 1067, 1077
(2019).
53 Waggoner, 875 F.3d at 104 (recognizing that the plaintiffs were
relying on a price maintenance theory, "which we have previously
accepted"); Glickenhous & Co. v. Household Int'l, Inc., 787 F.3d
408, 419 (7th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that a plaintiff can rely on
a price maintenance theory); FindWhat Investor Grp. v.
FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282, 1316 (11th Cir. 2011) ("Defendants
whose fraud prevents preexisting inflation in a stock price from
dissipating are just as liable as defendants whose fraud introduces
inflation into the stock market in the first instance.").
54 See, e.g., Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. (Lantronix Inc.)
Analyst Sec. Litig., 250 F.R.D. 137, 145 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("price
maintenance theory is patently deficient," because "Rule 23
determinations must be based on 'relevant facts' "); Ohio Pub.
Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 4:08CV0160, 2018 WL
3861840, at *18 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2018) ("Lead Plaintiff cannot
meaningfully argue that the misrepresentations artificially
maintained the price of the stock until risks materialized, as that
argument proves too much at the class certification stage, where
OPERS has the burden of persuasion as an evidentiary matter. . . .
A theory that statements maintained an inflated stock price is not
evidence that can refute otherwise overwhelming evidence of no
price impact.").
55 Goldman, slip op. at 11.
56 Id. at 12.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 3-5 (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).
59 Id. at 9.
60 Id. at 3.
61 Halliburton II, 573 U.S. at 290 (Thomas, J., dissenting); see
also Amgen, 568 U.S. at 482-83 ("[M]ore recent evidence suggests
that the presumption may rest on a faulty economic premise. . . .
In light of this development, reconsideration of the Basic
presumption may be appropriate.") (Alito, J., concurring).
62 Id.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide
to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about
your specific circumstances. [GN]
ARSTRAT LLC: Khaimov Files FDCPA Suit in D. Arizona
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ARStrat, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Artur Khaimov, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ARStrat, LLC; Unknown Parties,
John Does 1-25; Case No. 2:21-cv-01140-JJT (D. Ariz., June 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
ARstrat -- https://arstrat.com/ -- provides pre-litigation and
account litigation services for successful resolutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raphael Deutsch, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rdeutsch@steinsakslegal.com
ATHIRA PHARMA: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP (www.blockleviton.com), a national securities
litigation firm, on June 28 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders against Athira Pharma,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) and certain of its executives for securities
fraud. Investors who purchased Athira shares between September 18,
2020 and June 17, 2021 and who lost money are strongly encouraged
to contact Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email
at cases@blockleviton.com, or to visit our website for information
on the case.
The deadline to seek appointment as lead plaintiff is August 24,
2021.
On June 17, 2021, after the markets closed, Athira announced that
the company's board had placed its president and CEO, Leen Kawas,
on temporary leave pending their investigation of "actions stemming
from doctoral research Dr. Kawas conducted while at Washington
State University." According to one investment analyst, the
scientific basis for Athira came out of the work Kawas and her
colleagues developed at Washington State and this news could have
"clear negative implications for how we/investors view the asset,
and/or management credibility." Healthcare news outlets also cited
concerns that images in academic articles published by Kawas could
have been manipulated. On this news, Athira's stock price fell
$7.09 per share, or nearly 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on
June 18, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington and captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc,
No. 2:21-cv-00861 (W.D. Wash.). The class period is between
September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive. A class has not
yet been certified, and until a certification occurs, you are not
represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you
can remain an absent class member.
If you purchased or acquired Athira shares between September 18,
2020 and June 17, 2021 and have questions about your legal rights
or possess information relevant to this matter, please contact
Block & Leviton attorneys at (617) 398-5600, via email at
cases@blockleviton.com, or visit our website. The deadline to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff is August 24, 2021.
Block & Leviton LLP is a firm dedicated to representing investors
and maintaining the integrity of the country's financial markets.
The firm represents many of the nation's largest institutional
investors as well as individual investors in securities litigation
throughout the United States. The firm's lawyers have recovered
billions of dollars for its clients.
This notice may constitute attorney advertising.
CONTACT:
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 398-5600
Email: cases@blockleviton.com
SOURCE: Block & Leviton LLP
www.blockleviton.com [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 24 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 24, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Athira Pharma, Inc.
("Athira" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA): (a) common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with the Company's September 2020 initial public
offering ("IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (b) securities between
September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Athira 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.
Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that is
focused on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health
and stop neurodegeneration.
On June 17, 2021, after the market closed, Athira announced that it
had placed its president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen
Kawas ("Kawas"), on leave pending a review of actions stemming from
doctoral research she conducted while at Washington State
University ("WSU").
The same day, STAT published an article stating that WSU was
investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published several papers
containing altered images while she was a graduate student." These
papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to treat Alzheimer's"
because they "established that a particular molecule affects the
activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing a different molecule
than the one Kawas examined in the papers at issue, her "doctoral
work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in
their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
On this news, the Company's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $10.34 per share, a nearly 40% decline from the $17 per
share IPO price.
The Registration Statement was materially false and misleading and
omitted to state: (1) that Kawas had published research papers
containing improperly altered images while she was a graduate
student; (2) that this purported research was foundational to
Athira's efforts to develop treatments for Alzheimer's because it
laid the biological groundwork that Athira was using in its
approach to treating Alzheimer's; (3) that, as a result, Athira's
intellectual property and product development for the treatment of
Alzheimer's were based on invalid research; and (4) that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Athira common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the IPO and/or securities during the Class
Period, you may move the Court no later than August 24, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain
legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you need not
take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice
or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action.
If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
ATHIRA PHARMA: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 24 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors that securities fraud class action lawsuits have been
filed against Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) ("Athira") on
behalf of those who purchased or acquired Athira common stock: a)
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Athira's September 2020 initial public offering
("IPO"); and/or b) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Athira
common stock pursuant to or traceable to the IPO and/or during the
Class Period may, no later than August 24, 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/athira-pharma-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=athira
Athira is a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company that
focuses on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health
and stop neurodegeneration. On September 18, 2020, Athira filed its
prospectus on a Form 424B4, which forms part of the Registration
Statement. In the IPO, Athira sold approximately 13,397,712 shares
of common stock at a price of $17.00 per share. Athira received
proceeds of approximately $208.5 million from the IPO, net of
underwriting discounts and commissions.
According to the complaints, on June 17, 2021, after the market
closed, Athira announced in a press release that it had placed its
president and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Leen Kawas, on leave
pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral research she
conducted while at Washington State University ("WSU"). According
to Athira's press release, Athira's Board "formed an independent
special committee to undertake this review."
The same day, the scientific publication STAT published an article
stating that WSU was investigating claims that Dr. Kawas "published
several papers containing altered images while she was a graduate
student." These papers "are foundational to Athira's efforts to
treat Alzheimer's" because they "established that a particular
molecule affects the activity of HGF." Though Athira is developing
a different molecule than the one Dr. Kawas examined in the papers
at issue, her "doctoral work laid the biological groundwork that
Athira continues to use in their approach to treating Alzheimer's."
Specifically, "[i]mages of Western blots, used to determine the
presence of specific proteins in biological samples, look as though
they've been altered from their original state." According to
experts cited in the article, "If the Western blots are inaccurate,
then the whole study must be redone."
Following this news, Athira's share price fell $7.09, or
approximately 39%, to close at $11.15 per share on June 18, 2021.
The complaints allege that in the Registration Statement and/or
throughout the Class Period the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omitted to state that: (1) Dr. Kawas
had published research papers containing improperly altered images
while she was a graduate student; (2) this purported research was
foundational to Athira's efforts to develop treatments for
Alzheimer's because it laid the biological groundwork that Athira
was using in its approach to treating Alzheimer's; (3) as a result,
Athira's intellectual property and product development for the
treatment of Alzheimer's was based on invalid research; and (4) as
a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements
about Athira's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
Athira investors may, no later than August 24, 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]
ATLANTIC SPECIALTY: July 29 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS,
SERIES LLC, v. ATLANTIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
6:20-cv-00553-RBD-EJK (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:
1. granting the motion for extension of time to file motion for
class certification and to serve its expert witness
report(s);
2. extending the deadline for Plaintiff to serve expert reports
by seven days through and including July 8, 2021; and
3. extending the Plaintiff's deadline to file its Motion for
Class Certification by 14 days, through and including July
29, 2021.
On October 6, 2020, the Court entered its Case Management and
Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order set Plaintiff's deadline to
serve its expert report(s) for July 1, 2021, and provides that
discovery closes on September 2, 2021.
The Plaintiff served written discovery requests on March 1, 2021.
The Defendant thereafter served objections and filed its Motion to
Bifurcate. The Parties conferred in good faith regarding
Defendant's discovery objections, however, the Court's ruling on
the Motion to Bifurcate was required to settle certain of those
disputes. The Court denied the Motion to Bifurcate on June 7, 2021.
The Parties have been working together diligently to resolve their
discovery disputes and to schedule a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of
Defendant's corporate representative.
MSP Recovery provides professional services. The Company offers
comprehensive platform to recover on any claims where the law
places primary payment responsibility on another payer.
Atlantic Specialty Insurance Company located in Plymouth, Minnesota
and is part of the Property/Casualty Insurance Carriers Industry.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated June 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qGIbrC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by
Francesco Zincone, Esq.
ARMAS BERTRAN PIERI
4960 SW 72nd Avenue
Miami, FL 33155
Telephone: (305) 461-5100
E-mail: fzincone@armaslaw.com
AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Pay Manual Workers' Wages, Hyneman Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
NEAL HYNEMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:21-cv-02427-TLP-cgc (W.D. Tenn., June 24, 2021) alleges the
Defendant of violations of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a commercial driver
from September 2015 to May 2021 at an AutoZone location in Evans
Mills, New York.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a class action asserting his
claim that the Defendant has violated the NYLL by paying its manual
workers every other week rather than on a weekly basis during the
entirety of his employment with the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff
seeks judgment against the Defendant for liquidated damages,
pre-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and
litigation costs.
Autozone, Inc. is a retailer and distributor of automotive
replacement parts and accessories in the U.S. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 7th Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Federal Antitrust Lawsuit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------------
bloomberglaw.com reports that New Mexico's sovereign wealth fund
brought a federal antitrust lawsuit claiming Bank of America Corp.,
Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., and other top financial
institutions rigged the credit default swap market by manipulating
a key benchmark.
The proposed class action, docketed, also targets Barclays Plc, BNP
Paribas SA, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, Natwest Group Plc, and three industry
groups.
By rigging the "final auction price" used "to value all CDS
contracts market-wide at settlement," the banks have made "billions
of dollars in cartel profits at the expense of non-dealer market
participants," according to the complaint filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman, and JPMorgan declined to
comment. The other banks didn't immediately respond to requests for
comment.
The case concerns a system allegedly orchestrated by the banks
starting in 2005 for pricing credit default swaps through auctions
rather than bilateral negotiations between investors standing on
both sides.
Credit default swaps are financial derivatives that work by paying
out to holders of investments that are "impaired" by a "credit
event" like a default, in exchange for premium-like payments over
the life of the instrument. They can also be used to speculate on
investments not owned by the swap holder.
The banks promoted industrywide adoption of the auction process by
telling regulators during the 2008 financial crisis that it would
clean up some of the derivative trading practices that had led to
the meltdown, according to the complaint filed by the New Mexico
State Investment Council.
"The reality was much different," the suit says. They allegedly
"formed a dealer-only 'working group'" that had "no formal name"
and whose "existence was not publicized," through which they agreed
only banks would be allowed to participate directly in the
auctions.
"Shrouded from the public," the working group built "secrecy and
lack of scrutiny" into "the DNA of the CDS auction process,"
according to the complaint. Although the scheme began in 2005, the
litigation filing window remained open because the conspiracy was
"self-concealing," the suit says.
Because the banks operate "without serious government oversight"
under a "regulatory patchwork" that divides authority over swaps
among different agencies, they "have not been caught" before now,
according to the complaint.
Cause of Action: Section 1 of the Sherman Act; the Commodity
Exchange Act and related regulations; unjust enrichment.
Relief: Treble damages, costs, fees, and interest.
Potential Class Size: Anyone who has settled a credit default swap
at a price set through the auction process introduced in 2005.
Attorneys: The investment fund is represented by the New Mexico
attorney general's office and Kirby McInerney LLP.
The case is N.M. State Investment Council v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
D.N.M., No. 21-cv-606, complaint filed 7/1/21. [GN]
BEECH-NUT NUTRITION: Faces Suit Over Mislabeled Baby Food Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY ORSAK; and JULIE CHATAGNIER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BEECH-NUT NUTRITION
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-00722-TJM-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June
21, 2021) alleges that the Defendant failed to disclose the Heavy
Metal content of its Baby Food Products on its labels or in its
marketing materials.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant's
marketing and advertising of its products is false, deceptive, and
misleading to reasonable consumers because Defendant knows that
Heavy Metals are harmful to babies and yet it sells the Baby Food
Products nonetheless. The Defendant's marketing and advertising of
its products is also false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable
consumers because the Defendant failed to warn and disclose
material facts regarding the Baby Food Products, namely, that they
were unsafe and unsuitable for babies; that they contained Heavy
Metals; the levels of the Heavy Metals; that internal testing
showed that its products contained harmful Heavy Metals; and that
its internal policies permitted the sale of baby foods with harmful
Heavy Metals, the Plaintiffs assert.
Allegedly, the Defendant's manufacture, distribution, and sale of
the Baby Food Products were unlawful, unfair, false, and
misleading, and Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of
Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes.
Beech-Nut Nutrition Corporation produces food for infants and
toddlers. The Company offers fruit cups, jarred meats and
vegetables, yogurt, cookies, graham crackers, oatmeal, puree fruit
pouches, apple juice, white grape juice, and bottled spring water.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
BOSTON, MA: Muehe Files ADA Suit in D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against the City of Boston.
The case is styled as Michael Muehe, Elaine Hamilton, Colleen
Flanagan, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. City of Boston, Case No. 1:21-cv-11080-RGS (D. Mass., June 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Boston, officially the City of Boston -- https://www.boston.gov/ --
is the capital and most populous city of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in the United States and 21st most populous city in
the country.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas P. Murphy, Esq.
DISABILITY LAW CENTER, INC.
32 Industrial Drive East
Northampton, MA 01060
Phone: (413) 584-6524
Fax: (413) 584-6524
Email: tmurphy@dlc-ma.org
CALAVERAS MATERIALS: Leon Employment Suit Removed to E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ADRIAN LEON and RICHARD RODRIGUEZ, JR., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CALAVERAS
MATERIALS, INC.; LEHIGH HANSON SERVICES LLC; SOUTH VALLEY
MATERIALS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
21C-0105, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the
County of Kings to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of California on June 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-01013-DAD-HBK to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages,
failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal
periods, failure to provide required rest periods, failure to
provide accurate itemized statements, failure to reimburse
employees for required expenses, failure to provide wages when due,
and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.
Calaveras Materials, Inc. is a construction materials company based
in Hughson, California.
Lehigh Hanson Services LLC is a producer of construction products
and materials based in Irving, Texas.
South Valley Materials, Inc. is a construction products and
materials company based in California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michele Ballard Miller, Esq.
Jason E. Barsanti, Esq.
Ethan W. Chernin, Esq.
COZEN O'CONNOR
101 Montgomery St., Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 644-0914
Facsimile: (415) 644-0978
E-mail: mbmiller@cozen.com
jbarsanti@cozen.com
echernin@cozen.com
CARMAX INC: Remains a Class Member in Ford Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2021, that the company remains a class member for the
Ford settlement fund, in the settled class action suit entitled, In
re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation.
The company is a class member in a consolidated and settled class
action lawsuit (In re: Takata Airbag Product Liability Litigation
(U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida)) against
Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda, Nissan and Ford related to the
economic loss associated with defective Takata airbags installed as
original equipment in certain model vehicles from model years
2000-2018.
On April 15, 2020, CarMax received $40.3 million in net recoveries
from the Toyota, Mazda, Subaru, BMW, Honda and Nissan settlement
funds.
CarMax remains a class member for the Ford settlement fund.
CarMax said, "We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the
amount or range of gain that could result from CarMax’s
participation in the Ford settlement fund."
CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.
CARMAX INC: Sabanovich Suit vs. CarMax Superstores Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2021, that CarMax Superstores California, LLC,
continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by
Joshua Sabanovich .
On October 31, 2017, Joshua Sabanovich v. CarMax Superstores
California, LLC et al., a putative class action, was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Stanislaus asserting wage
and hour claims with respect to CarMax sales consultants and
non-exempt employees in California.
The asserted claims include failure to pay minimum wage; provide
meal periods and rest breaks; pay statutory/contractual wages;
reimburse for work-related expenses and provide accurate itemized
wage statements; unfair competition; and Private Attorney General
Act claims.
The Sabanovich lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, restitution,
statutory penalties, interest, cost and attorneys' fees.
CarMax said, "Based upon our evaluation of information currently
available, we believe that the ultimate resolution of the
Sabanovich lawsuit will not have a material adverse effect on our
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows."
CarMax, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a retailer of
used vehicles in the United States. The company operates in two
segments, CarMax Sales Operations and CarMax Auto Finance. CarMax,
Inc. was founded in 1993 and is based in Richmond, Virginia.
CARNIVAL CORP: Court Tosses Linsday Bid to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEONARD C. LINDSAY and
CARL E.W. ZEHNER, v. CARNIVAL CORPORATION, CARNIVAL PLC, and
HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. d/b/a HOLLAND AMERICA LINE N.V. LLC,
Case No. 2:20-cv-00982-TSZ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge entered an
order Thomas S. Zilly entered an order:
1. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is denied.
2. The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all
counsel of record.
The Court said, "Contrary to the Plaintiffs' arguments, Atlantic
Marine Construction does not suggest that Rule 23 acts as a
categorical bar to class action waivers. First, the case analyzed
the proper procedure for transfer and did not suggest that parties
may not contract away procedural rights under the applicable Rules.
Second, while federal statute exclusively determines whether a
forum is proper and courts exclusively decide whether to transfer a
case, the decision of whether to bring a class action lies with the
plaintiff alone. As such, the plaintiffs may contractually agree to
forgo their procedural right to bring a class action and, if that
agreement is otherwise valid, courts may enforce the waiver without
18 considering the typical inquiries involved in a Rule 23
analysis.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is
barred by the Cruise Contract's class action waiver. Accordingly,
the Court need not address whether the Plaintiffs satisfy the
requirements for class certification under Rule 23 or whether
joinder is appropriate under Rule 42(b).
The Plaintiffs have since brought this suit as a putative class
action on behalf of the 1,000-plus passengers who were aboard the
MS ZAANDAM during the relevant time period.
Carnival Corporation is a British-American cruise operator,
currently the world's largest travel leisure company, with a
combined fleet of over 100 vessels across 10 cruise line brands.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ycVsLa at no extra charge.[CC]
CARNIVAL PLC: Class Suits Over Covid-19 Outbreak Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Carnival plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend ten
purported class actions suits related to COVID-19 Outbreak.
As of June 21, 2021, ten purported class actions have been brought
by former guests from Ruby Princess, Diamond Princess, Grand
Princess, Coral Princess, Costa Luminosa or Zaandam in several U.S.
federal courts and in the Federal Court of Australia.
These actions include tort claims based on a variety of theories,
including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn,
physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with
being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard.
All COVID-19 actions seek monetary damages and most seek additional
punitive damages in unspecified amounts.
Carnival plc operates as a leisure travel company in North America,
Australia, Europe, and Asia. It operates in four segments: North
America and Australia Cruise Operations, Europe and Asia Cruise
Operations, Cruise Support, and Tour and Other. The company
operates cruises under the Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises,
Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), Seabourn, Costa,
AIDA, P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard brand names. Carnival plc was
founded in 1850 and is based in Southampton, the United Kingdom.
CARNIVAL PLC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Carnival plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2021, that the court dismissed the consolidated class
action suit headed by the New England Carpenters Pension and
Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and
Annuity Fund.
A consolidated class action complaint with new lead plaintiffs, the
New England Carpenters Pension and Guaranteed Annuity Fund and the
Massachusetts Laborers' Pension and Annuity Fund, was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
December 15, 2020 on behalf of all purchasers of Carnival
Corporation common stock and/or Carnival plc American Depositary
Shares, and sellers of put options and purchasers of call options
on those securities, between September 16, 2019 and March 31, 2020,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
On May 28, 2021, the court dismissed the complaint without
prejudice.
Plaintiff's current deadline to file a second amended complaint is
July 2, 2021.
Carnival plc operates as a leisure travel company in North America,
Australia, Europe, and Asia. It operates in four segments: North
America and Australia Cruise Operations, Europe and Asia Cruise
Operations, Cruise Support, and Tour and Other. The company
operates cruises under the Carnival Cruise Line, Princess Cruises,
Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), Seabourn, Costa,
AIDA, P&O Cruises (UK), and Cunard brand names. Carnival plc was
founded in 1850 and is based in Southampton, the United Kingdom.
CHAPLAIN TOWERS: Faces Class Action Over Building Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan J. Farrick, writing for Legal Reader, reports that over 150
people in the building remain unaccounted for.
A resident of Chaplain Towers South, the Florida residential
high-rise that collapsed last month, filed a prospective class
action lawsuit less than a day after the disaster occurred.
According to NBC News, the complaint was filed by Manuel Drezner in
a Miami-Dade County court just before 11:30pm on June 24. In his
court filings, Drezner and his attorney say the class action
intends to "compensate the victims of this unfathomable loss."
The lawsuit, notes NBC, relates to the collapse of a building in
Surfside Florida, near Miami Beach.
The high-rise, residential condominium building collapsed at
approximately 1:30am on June 24. Of the tower's 136 units, an
estimated 55 -- all located in the northeast corridor --
disappeared within seconds.
While official figures list only four dead and 11 injured, at least
159 people remain unaccounted for—likely dead, or possibly
trapped beneath the rubble.
Drezner's lawsuit says that the Chaplain Towers South Condominium
Association Inc. "failed to adequately secure the building, placing
the lives and property of its occupants and visitors [. . .] at
risk resulting in the collapse of the building."
"At all relevant times, defendant was aware, or reasonably should
have been aware that the plaintiff's and the class's lives and
property were at risk due to the lack of precautions taken at
Champlain Towers South," the lawsuit states.
NBC News reports that, even though officials have yet to determine
the cause of the collapse, the lawsuit asserts that class members
will retain the right to amend their filing as more information
becomes known, both about the disaster's source and its number of
victims.
For now, the lawsuit broadly alleges that the Chaplain Towers South
Condominium Association had an agreement with the building owners,
which said the "association shall maintain, repair and replace at
the association's own expense [. . .] all portions of the units [.
. .] contributing to the support of the building, which portions
should include but not limited to, the outside of the building and
load bearing columns."
The lawsuit claims that the agreement was "clearly" breached the
Association.
"According to public statements made by Defendant's attorney Ken
Direktor, 'repair needs had been identified' with regard to certain
structural issues but had not been implemented; one of the most
breathtakingly frightening tragedies in the history of South
Florida followed," the lawsuit says.
However, Direktor -- who continues to represent the Chaplain Towers
South Condominium Association—said his client had done nothing
wrong.
"I don't know what caused this building to fall down, you don't
know what caused this building to fall down, government officials
do not know what caused this building to fall down, the engineers
don't know what caused this building to fall down," Direktor said.
"Please, explain to me how this lawyer knows what caused this
building to fall down."
The class action, adds WPTV.com, is seeking restitution, recovery
of damages, and attorneys fees. [GN]
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Vincent Wong Reminds of July 6 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 27 disclosed that class
actions have commenced on behalf of certain shareholders in the
following companies. If you suffered a loss you have until the lead
plaintiff deadline to request that the court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. There will be no obligation or cost to you.
Churchill Capital Corp IV (NYSE:CCIV)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:http://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/churchill-capital-corp-iv-loss-submission-form?prid=17195&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 6, 2021
Class Period: January 11, 2021 - February 22, 2021
Allegations against CCIV include that: (1) Lucid was not prepared
to deliver vehicles by spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a
production of 557 vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles
touted in the run-up to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.
Provention Bio, Inc. (NASDAQ:PRVB)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/provention-bio-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17195&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 20, 2021
Class Period: November 2, 2020 - April 8, 2021
Allegations against PRVB include that: (i) the teplizumab Biologics
License Application ("BLA") was deficient in its submitted form and
would require additional data to secure U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval; (ii) accordingly, the teplizumab BLA
lacked the evidentiary support the Company had led investors to
believe it possessed; (iii) the Company had thus overstated the
teplizumab BLA's approval prospects and hence the commercialization
timeline for teplizumab; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN)
If you suffered a loss, contact us
at:https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17195&wire=1
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
Class Period: February 2, 2021 - June 10, 2021
Allegations against OCGN include that: (i) the information
submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was
insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA"),
(ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA, (iii) as a result
of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements, as well as
Defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
To learn more contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com or by telephone at 212.425.1140.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney who has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN]
CLEARLINK PARTNERS: Court Allows Bid for Conditional Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Laurie Pearl v. Clearlink
Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10529-NMG (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order allowing the plaintiff's
motion for conditional class certification.
The class of potential opt-in plaintiffs entitled to notice is
defined as:
"all individuals who worked for Clearlink providing
utilization review services ("Utilization Review Employees"
or "UREs") in the United States between June 29, 2018, and
the present who were not paid overtime."
The Court further directs the parties to confer with each other
with respect to the proposed notice, and report back to the Court
within 14 days of this Order.
Clearlink Partners is a professional services firm building high
performing operational team in the areas of accounting, healthcare,
and technology.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3qH4gGG at no extra charge.[CC]
COLONIAL PIPELINE: Faces EZ Mart Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
EZ MART 1, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:21-cv-02522-MHC (N.D. Ga., June 21, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure the
largest pipeline system for refined oil products in the U.S.
According to the complaint, on May 7, 2021, the Defendant learned
that cybercriminals had performed a ransomware attack against
Defendant's systems, which encrypted or "locked" certain data
thereon (the "Ransomware Attack").
By the end of the day, the Defendant paid the cybercriminals a $4.4
million ransom in return for a decryption tool that would allow the
Defendant to retrieve the encrypted or "locked" data. Even with the
decryption tool, it took approximately 5 days for the Defendant to
restart the Pipeline.
The five-day shutdown of the Pipeline resulted in fuel shortages in
areas that the Pipeline serviced, affecting more than 11,000 gas
stations and causing a sharp increase in the price of gasoline for
automobiles and other motor vehicles and a sharp decrease in
convenience store sales, the suit says.
Colonial Pipeline Company provides pipeline services. The Company
delivers gasoline, kerosene, home heating oil, diesel, national
defense fuels, and other refined petroleum products through
pipelines. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory John Bosseler, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
191 Peachtree St., NESuite 4200
Atlanta, GA 30306
Telephone: (239) 433-6880
E-mail: gbosseler@forthepeople.com
-and-
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
Ryan D. Maxey, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
BUSINESS DIVISION
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FA 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com
rmaxey@ForThePeople.com
-and-
Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
Martin Ramey, Esq.
Janet Coleman, Esq.
Ruth Sheehan, Esq.
RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
1612 Military Cutoff Rd., Suite 300
Wilmington, N.C. 28403
Telephone: (910) 772-9960
E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com
mjr@rhinelawfirm.com
jrc@rhinelawfirm.com
ras@rhinelawfirm.com
-and-
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
John S. Hughes, Esqs.
WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.
525 North Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Telephone: (704) 633-5244
Facsimile: (704) 633-9434
E-mail: mwallace@wallacegraham.com
jhughes@wallacegraham.com
-and-
Alexander M. Hall, Esq.
John F. Green, II, Esq.
HALL & GREEN, LLP
718 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
Telephone: (910) 343-8433
E-mail: atttyalexhall@gmail.com
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Pomerantz LLP Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
ContextLogic Inc. ("ContextLogic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: WISH).
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 7980.
The investigation concerns whether ContextLogic and certain of its
officers and/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
On or around December 16, 2020, ContextLogic completed its initial
public offering ("IPO"), selling 46 million shares of its Class A
common stock at $24.00 per share, raising more than $1.1 billion in
proceeds. On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic reported its fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2020 financial results for the period ended
December 31, 2020. Among other results the Company disclosed that
by the time of its December 2020 IPO, its monthly active users
("MAUs") had already "declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million,
primarily in some emerging markets outside of Europe and North
America where [the Company] temporarily de-emphasized advertising
and customer acquisition as it worked through logistics challenges
it faced earlier in the year."
On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.93 per share, or
10.3%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021.
Then, on May 12, 2020, ContextLogic announced 1Q21 financial
results for the interim period ended March 31, 2021, disclosing
that its MAUs had declined another 7% to just 101 million. The
Company's forward sales guidance also fell short, with its second
quarter 2021 revenue guidance of just $715 million to $730 million
coming in significantly less than the $759 million the market had
been led to expect and far less than the guidance of $735 to $750
million provided for 1Q21.
On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36 per share, or
29.29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021.
The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com
CONTACT:
Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]
CORIZON HEALTH: Williams Suit Seeks to Certify Class of Nurses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESSICA WILLIAMS, SHERYL
FRITZ and JAMIE TERRY, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, v. CORIZON HEALTH, INC. and CORIZON, LLC, Case
No. 6:19-cv-03365-SRB (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order
1. Certifying a Rule 23 Class of current and former Missouri
Correctional Nurses;
2. Designating Plaintiffs Jamie Terry, Jessica Williams and
Sheryl Fritz as class representatives for the Rule 23 Class;
3. Approving Williams Dirks Dameron LLC and Burger Law LLC to
act as class counsel in this matter;
4. Requiring the issuance of the notice form via first class
mail and email;
5. Authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice to class members
through first-class mail and email; and
6. Granting such other relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Corizon Health, formed by a 2011 merger of Correctional Medical
Services, Inc. and Prison Health Services, Inc., is a privately
held prison healthcare contractor in the United States.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated June 30,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jGyx7b
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
Amy R. Jackson, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: 816-945-7110
Facsimile: 816-945-7118
E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
amy@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Gary K. Burger, Jr., Esq.
Genavieve Fikes, Esq.
BURGER LAW FIRM, LLC
500 North Broadway, Suite 1860
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 542-2222
E-mail: gary@burgerlaw.com
genavieve@burgerlaw.com
DREYER'S GRAND: Zurliene Sues Over Ice Cream Bars' Deceptive Labels
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA ZURLIENE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DREYER'S GRAND ICE CREAM, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00747 (S.D. Ill., June 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligent misrepresentation,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breaches of express warranty, implied
warranty of merchantability and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in false,
deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing by
replacing chocolate ingredients from cacao beans with vegetable
oils on its Vanilla Milk Chocolate ice cream bars under the
Haagen-Dazs brand. The representation of the product's coating as
"Rich Milk Chocolate" is misleading because it contains ingredients
not found in chocolate. The Plaintiff and Class members were harmed
as they purchased a product that was materially less than its value
as represented by the Defendant. Had they known the truth, they
would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it,
the suit says.
Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. is an American ice cream company,
headquartered in Oakland, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd., Ste. 409
Great Neck, NY 11021-3104
Telephone: (516) 268-7080
Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com
ETORO USA: Sanchez Suit Transferred to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cristian Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No.
1:21-cv-02291 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
New York Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey on June 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13170 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
eToro's -- https://www.etoro.com/en-us/ -- trusted platform
empowers millions of users in over 140 countries by providing easy
access to innovative investment tools, with the added value of an
engaging, collaborative trading community.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Maya Ginsburg, Esq.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Phone: +1 212.419.5873
Fax: +1 973.597.2400
Email: mginsburg@lowenstein.com
EXCELLUS HEALTH: Hunter Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Excellus Health Plan,
Inc. The case is styled as Robert K. Hunter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Excellus Health Plan,
Inc. doing business as: Excellus Bluecross Blueshield, Case No.
8:21-cv-00744-MAD-CFH (N.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Insurance.
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield -- http://www.excellusbcbs.com/-- is
a non-profit health insurance company headquartered in Rochester,
New York.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Nelson Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jessica Nelson, individually and on behalf of
Similarly Situated Costumers v. Experian Information Solutions
Inc., Case No. 31-CV-21-900272.00 was transferred from the Circuit
Court of Etowah County, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on June 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:21-cv-00894-CLM to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. --
https://www.experian.com/corporate/experian-locations -- operates
as an information services company. The Company offers credit
information, analytical tools, and marketing services. Experian
Information Solutions serves clients worldwide.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brooke Boucek Rebarchak, Esq.
James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
METHVIN, TERRELL, YANCEY, STEPHENS & MILLER, P.C.
2201 Arlington Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Phone: (205) 939-0199
Fax: (205) 939-0399
Email: brebarchak@mmlaw.net
mstephens@mtattorneys.com
- and -
W. Whitney Seals, Esq.
COCHRUN & SEALS, LLC
P O Box 10448
Birmingham, AL 35202-0448
Phone: (205) 323-3900
Fax: (205) 323-3906
Email: filings@cochrunseals.com
The Defendant is represented by:
L. Jackson Young, Jr., Esq.
MOORE, YOUNG, FOSTER & HAZELTON, LLC
1122 Edenton Street
Birmingham, AL 35242
Phone: (205) 879-8722
Fax: (205) 879-8831
Email: Ljy@ffmylaw.com
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in Reynolds Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAIR REYNOLDS, ET AL., v.
FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-11745-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order that the Defendant's motions to dismiss are
granted in part and denied in part.
The following claims are dismissed without prejudice:
-- Pineda's claim for breach of express warranty, Powers's claim
for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA;
-- Laing's claim for violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (MUDTPA), Hancock's claims for breach of
express warranty and violation of the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (GUDTPA); and
-- Schafer's claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the North Carolina Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(NCUDTPA).
The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs' MMWA claims are
dismissed as to any state for which a named Plaintiff does not
assert a valid warranty claim.
In this consolidated putative class action, Plaintiffs, eight
current and former Jeep Wrangler owners, bring claims under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), and several state warranty and
consumer fraud statutes, against Defendant, FCA US LLC, the
designer and manufacturer of Jeep vehicles. The gravamen of
Plaintiffs' complaints is that Defendant failed to warn prospective
Jeep purchasers of a defect, and has failed to cure the defect as
required by its warranties.
The defect of which Plaintiffs complain is commonly referred to as
the "Death Wobble." When a vehicle affected by the Death Wobble
encounters a bump at highway speeds, its front-end steering
components, including its steering wheel, begin to violently shake
from side to side. Drivers who experience the Death Wobble report
feeling as though their vehicles are out of control and coming
apart at the seams. The only way to reliably stop the shaking is to
bring the vehicle to a complete stop.
The Plaintiffs allege that "the 'Death Wobble' makes [affected
vehicles] unsafe to operate by impairing the operator's ability to
steer and control while presenting a safety risk to the occupants
and others on the road."
A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3jADoqk at no extra charge.[CC]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Aug. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency
Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March
22, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts. To get more information go to:
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17329&wire=5
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - FREQ NEWS
CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: the Company's Phase
2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's expectations as
the results revealed no discernable difference between FX-322 and
the placebo. In spite of the disappointing results, the Company
continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while releasing positive
statements in earnings calls, press releases, SEC filings, and
pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's potential. These
statements materially misled the market and artificially inflated
the value of Frequency's common stock.
WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in
Frequency Therapeutics, you have until August 2, 2021 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share
in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Frequency Therapeutics securities
between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or
fees.
PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17329&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
[GN]
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Thornton Law Reminds of August 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of Frequency Therapeutics,
Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ). The case is currently in the lead plaintiff
stage. Investors who purchased FREQ stock or other securities
November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021 may contact the Thornton Law
Firm's investor protection team by visiting
www.tenlaw.com/cases/Frequency for more information. Investors may
also email investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.
The case alleges that Frequency Therapeutics and CEO David L.
Lucchino learned that the Phase 2a trial results for a hearing loss
treatment titled 'FX-322,' revealed no discernable difference
between FX-322 and the placebo, shortly after launching the Phase
2a trial. It is further alleged that while Frequency Therapeutics'
stock price remained artificially inflated, defendant Lucchino sold
over 350,000 Frequency Therapeutics shares, receiving over $10.5
million in proceeds.
Interested Frequency investors have until August 2, 2021 to retain
counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are interested to
do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other investor class
members in managing the class action. Investors do not need to be a
lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If investors choose
to take no action, they can remain an absent class member. The
class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs,
investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law Firm is
not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a complaint but is
investigating the case on behalf of investors interested in being a
lead plaintiff.
Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. [GN]
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Garcia Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JOSEPH GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; GEODIS USA,
LLC; GEODIS SCO USA, LLC; OZBURN-HESSEY LOGISTICS, LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY; MIKE HONIOUS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. CIV SB 2113858, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Bernardino to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on June 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-01081 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide required meal periods, failure to
provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay timely wages during
employment, failure to pay all wages due to discharged and quitting
employees, failure to maintain required records, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, failure to indemnify employees for
necessary expenditures, and unfair competition.
Geodis Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Brentwood,
Tennessee.
Geodis USA, LLC is a logistics company headquartered in Brentwood,
Tennessee.
Geodis SCO USA, LLC is a logistics company with its principal place
of business in Brentwood, Tennessee.
Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in
Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Noah J. Woods, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 515-1827
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
E-mail: nwoods@littler.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Arnold & Porter Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica E. Callahan, Esq., Kolya D. Glick, Esq., Arthur Luk, Esq.,
Joshua Martin, Esq., Aaron Miner, Esq., Kathleen Reilly, Esq.,
Stephanna Szotkowski, Esq., and Michael Trager, Esq., of Arnold &
Porter, in an article for Mondaq, report that on June 21, 2021, the
US Supreme Court decided Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al.
(Petitioners) v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, a closely
watched case that Petitioners touted as "the most important
securities case to come before the Court since Halliburton Co. v.
Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), 573 US 258 (2014)." As
discussed in previous advisories, the case concerns the "Basic
presumption," a rule born out of a 1988 Supreme Court decision that
allows a court to presume class-wide "reliance" on a defendant's
alleged misrepresentations if the plaintiff establishes certain
prerequisites. Basic v. Levinson, 485 US 224, 246-47 (1988). The
issues before the Court concern the extent to which defendants may
challenge the Basic presumption at the class certification stage.
The differences between the parties' positions narrowed following
the Court's decision to grant certiorari, as the Court confirmed at
oral argument.
In an opinion written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court held
that -- as the parties ultimately agreed -- courts must consider
evidence regarding the "generality" of an alleged misstatement at
the class certification stage, even though that evidence is
probative of materiality as well. The Court found that the Second
Circuit may not have properly considered the generic nature of the
alleged misrepresentations and remanded the case for a reassessment
of the district court's determination of whether those statements
impacted the price of the company's stock. The Court also held
that, once plaintiffs have successfully invoked the Basic
presumption, defendants must bear the burden of production and
persuasion in seeking to prove the "lack of a price impact by a
preponderance of the evidence." Maj. Op. at 1.
While the Opinion offers basic answers to complicated securities
law issues, in remanding the case for further proceedings, it also
leaves key questions unresolved. In this advisory, we summarize the
Court's decision and the two partial dissenting opinions, and we
provide our insights and analysis regarding what remains to be
decided.
The Decade-Long Journey to the Supreme Court
As detailed in our previous Advisory, this decade-old litigation
arises from allegations that, between 2006 and 2010, Petitioners
"maintained an inflated stock price by making repeated
misrepresentations about its conflict-of-interest policies and
business practices." Maj. Op. at 5. These alleged
misrepresentations included generic statements such as "Our
clients' interests always come first," and "Integrity and honesty
are at the heart of our business." Id.
Based on these statements, a putative class of shareholders
(Plaintiffs) sued Petitioners, asserting theories of securities
fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, which together "prohibit material
misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the sale of
securities." Maj. Op. 2. Relying on what is known as the "price
maintenance" theory, Plaintiffs argued that Petitioners' statements
were false or misleading and that they kept the company's stock at
an artificially "inflated" price. Id. at 5. Plaintiffs further
alleged that, once a Government investigation publicized
Petitioners' conflicts of interest, the stock price plummeted,
causing shareholders to lose money. Id.
The district court ultimately certified a class of
plaintiff-shareholders. Maj. Op. 5-6. In doing so, the district
court held that Plaintiffs had successfully invoked the "Basic
presumption," a procedural device born out of Basic Inc. v.
Levinson, which allows investor-plaintiffs to rely on a presumption
of class-wide reliance at the class certification stage based on a
"fraud on-the-market" theory. The district court further held that
Petitioners had failed to carry their burden of rebutting the Basic
presumption through evidence that the alleged misrepresentations
had no impact on the company's stock price. The court certified the
class, and the Second Circuit affirmed that certification in a 2-1
split decision.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions: (1) whether
defendants may defeat the Basic presumption by showing that the
generic nature of the alleged misstatements meant that those
statements have no impact on the price of defendants' securities;
and (2) whether defendants trying to rebut the Basic presumption
bear only the burden of production or also the ultimate burden of
persuasion.
In an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court first held
that "the generic nature of a misrepresentation often is important
evidence of price impact that courts should consider at class
certification." Maj. Op. 1. As to the resulting remedy, the Court
held that, because the Second Circuit "may not have properly
considered the generic nature" of the "alleged misrepresentations,"
it was appropriate to vacate and remand for further consideration
of the district court's price impact determination. Id.
The Court then held that Basic and its progeny require "defendants
to bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by
a preponderance of the evidence." Id. The opinion emphasized,
however, "that the burden of persuasion should rarely be outcome
determinative." Id. The majority explained: "In most
securities-fraud class actions, as in this one, the plaintiffs and
defendants submit competing expert evidence on price impact. The
district court's task is simply to assess all the evidence of price
impact—direct and indirect—and determine whether it is more
likely than not that the alleged misrepresentations had a price
impact. The defendant's burden of persuasion will have bite only
when the court finds the evidence in equipoise—a situation that
should rarely arise." Id. at 12.
The Partial Dissents
While the majority opinion appears straightforward at first
blush—indeed, all nine justices agreed that the generic nature of
alleged misrepresentations should be considered at the class
certification stage—the two partial dissents highlight the
complexities of the questions presented.
In a solo opinion, Justice Sotomayor dissented from the Court's
"remedy" holding only. Sotomayor Dissent at 1. While she agreed
with the majority's statement of the legal standard regarding
"generality" evidence, she concluded that the Second Circuit did
not err in applying that standard, stating that the court did
"properly consider the generic nature of [Petitioners'] alleged
misrepresentations." Id. at 1-2. She therefore would have affirmed
the decision below.
Justice Sotomayor's departure from the majority stemmed from her
interpreting the Second Circuit's opinion differently. While the
majority identified language in the opinion suggesting that the
Second Circuit did not consider the generic nature of Petitioners'
alleged misrepresentations, Justice Sotomayor concluded that those
isolated statements "must be viewed in the context of
[Petitioners'] now-abandoned argument that generic
misrepresentations have no price impact as a matter of law." Id. at
3. Petitioners' arguments, Justice Sotomayor asserted, improperly
sought to inject a "materiality" inquiry into the class
certification stage. Noting that the Second Circuit's decision
properly rejected that argument under Amgen—which held that
"materiality is irrelevant" when considering motions for class
certification—Justice Sotomayor did not read the opinion as
offering any broader statements regarding the consideration of
"generality" evidence. Id. at 3 (citing Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret.
Plans and Tr. Funds, 568 US 455, 468 (2013)).
Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito) dissented in
part as well, disagreeing with the Court's holding that the
defendant bears the burden of persuasion when seeking to rebut the
Basic presumption. Gorsuch Dissent at 1. Justice Gorsuch emphasized
that the general rule of presumptions—embodied in Federal Rule of
Evidence 301, Title VII litigation, and elsewhere—requires courts
to shift only the burden of production to defendants, not the
burden of persuasion. Id. at 6. The dissent thus criticized the
majority's interpretation of Basic, accusing it of "splic[ing]" and
"pluck[ing]" words and phrases from prior opinions to reach its
conclusion. Id. at 7. "The hard truth," Justice Gorsuch concluded,
"is that in the 30-plus years since Basic, this Court has never
(before) suggested that plaintiffs are relieved from carrying the
burden of persuasion on any aspect of their own causes of action."
Id. Accordingly, because he reasoned that Basic and its progeny do
not expressly depart from the traditional rule of presumptions that
keeps the burden of persuasion on plaintiffs, Justice Gorsuch would
have held that the accepted background principles should control
here.
Insights and Analysis
Basic is here to stay. By holding that defendants bear the burden
of production and persuasion at the class certification stage, a
six-justice majority recognized and reinforced that the Basic
presumption is an important tool that "allows class action
plaintiffs to prove reliance through evidence common to the class,"
making it "easier for plaintiffs to establish the predominance
requirement" necessary for class certification. Maj. Op. at 3.
Without that presumption, "individualized issues of reliance
ordinarily would defeat predominance and 'preclude certification'
of a securities-fraud class action." Id. at 4. This case is
therefore notable because all three opinions accepted the Basic
framework, whereas in both Amgen and Halliburton II, Justices
Thomas and Alito wrote separate opinions expressing skepticism
about the continuing viability and legitimacy of the Basic
presumption.
Materiality by any other name. The Court unanimously held that
defendants may introduce evidence regarding the "generic nature of
a misrepresentation" in seeking to disprove a price impact. In a
footnote, the majority recognized the impact its holding will have,
noting: "We recognize that materiality and price impact are
overlapping concepts and . . . evidence relevant to one will almost
always be relevant to the other." Maj. Op. 7 n.2. But, in reaching
its decision, the Court held that the district court may not use
that overlap to exclude evidence. After this opinion, therefore, it
will be difficult (if not impossible) for plaintiffs to limit
defendants' class certification evidence merely because it relates
to the element of "materiality." In doing so, the Court's holding
cabins its prior decision in Amgen, which ruled that plaintiffs
need not demonstrate materiality at the class certification stage.
While plaintiffs can still use Amgen as a shield to deflect
arguments specific to the element of "materiality," it appears they
can no longer use Amgen as a sword to preclude defendants'
evidence.
Evidentiary free-for-all at class certification? As a practical
matter, the Court's opinion reduces the evidentiary constraints on
defendants seeking to rebut the Basic presumption. Thus, while the
Court refused to formally shift the burden of persuasion to
plaintiffs, it evened the playing field slightly by giving
defendants new options for successfully rebutting the Basic
presumption. Under this framework, the majority opinion suggested
that its "burden" ruling is "unlikely to make much difference on
the ground" because, "[i]n most securities-fraud actions . . . the
plaintiffs and defendants submit competing expert evidence on price
impact" and the district court can simply assess that evidence to
reach a conclusion without resorting to the burden. Maj. Op. at 12.
In contrast, Justice Gorsuch remarked that "the whole reason we
allocate the burden of persuasion is to resolve close cases by
providing a tie breaker where the burden does make a difference."
Gorsuch Dissent at 9. It remains to be seen whether the burden is
largely academic—as the majority suggested—or whether it will
instead be used as a "tie breaker" to tilt the scales in
plaintiffs' favor, as Justice Gorsuch predicted.
"No comment" on price maintenance theory. Plaintiffs rely on a
"price maintenance" theory, which asserts that a misrepresentation
caused a stock price to remain inflated by preventing preexisting
inflation from dissipating from the stock price. Id. at 4. In a
footnote, the Court acknowledged the price maintenance theory, but
it "expressed no view on its validity or contours," leaving that
question for the lower courts and/or for a future cert. petition.
Id. at 5 n.1.
Justice Barrett's below-the-line conclusions. Justice Barrett's
footnotes provide insight on the key substantive issues underlying
the Court's decision. As noted, she acknowledges the "price
maintenance theory" but does not address it, Maj. Op. 5 n.1, and
she recognizes the overlap between materiality and price impact and
states that the overlap has no bearing on the admissibility of
evidence at class certification, id. at 7 n.2. She also highlights
the critical language from the Second Circuit's opinions, id. at 9
n.3, and responds to Justice Gorsuch's dissent on the "general
rule" regarding presumptions, id. at 11 n.4. Every one of her four
footnotes identifies a key issue in understanding the effect of the
Court's holding in this case.
Old courts run deep. In Justice Barrett's majority, and in Justice
Sotomayor's dissent, there are citations to decisions from the
Courts of Appeal on which they previously served. For instance,
Justice Barrett grounded the majority opinion in reasoning from a
Seventh Circuit opinion, In re Allstate, 966 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.
2020), in which she participated as a panel member before she was
elevated to the Supreme Court. In addition, Justice Sotomayor --
who previously served as a judge on the Second Circuit -- was the
only justice to find that the Second Circuit appropriately
considered the generality of Petitioners' alleged misstatements.
[GN]
GOOGLE LLC: More Settlements Paid Out in Nexus 6P Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Damien Wilde, writing for 9 to 5 Google, reports that more
settlements are being paid out in the latest round of payments in
the long-running Nexus 6P class-action lawsuit.
The Nexus 6P was ultimately a flawed device that helped pave the
way for the Google Pixel line. The problems mounted with severe
battery issues plaguing owners (myself included), which fueled a
class-action lawsuit against Google and Huawei filed back in 2017.
Settlements from this lawsuit have slowly trickled through, with
the first round of payments being sent to Nexus 6P owners in early
2020.
If you happened to sign up to participate in the original lawsuit,
payment should be heading out right now. Originally, claims could
be as high as $400, that is if you could prove both boot looping
and the unexpected shutdown issue affected your Nexus 6P. This time
around, the payments being sent out are not quite at the same level
as this high-end figure.
We've seen payments as high as $11.33 with plenty of commenters on
the /r/Nexus6P subreddit confirming they have received PayPal
payments for the princely sum. Some may be wondering why are
payments heading out given the settlements issued last year.
Interestingly, the Nexus 6P lawsuit/settlement website states that
"Final distribution will be made to valid Claimants no later than
February 21, 2020." That confuses matters further as it's clearly
2021. We can only assume that this extra payout is a top-up to the
full amount that owners should receive.
If you did partake in the original Nexus 6P lawsuit, now might be
the time to check your bank or PayPal account to see if you are
sitting on some more of that payout money. [GN]
GR WIRELINE: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, SAMUEL MCCAIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GR WIRELINE, L.P. and GR ENERGY
SERVICES OPERATING GP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-02071 (S.D.
Tex., June 24, 2021) challenges the Defendants' alleged unlawful
employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendants as a "Wireline
Supervisor" in a variety of states, asserts that the Defendants
designated him and other similarly situated employees as exempt
from overtime provisions of the FLSA. Despite routinely working
more than 40 hours per week throughout their employment with the
Defendants, the Defendants did not pay them overtime premium at the
federally mandated overtime rate, the Plaintiff says.
The Corporate Defendants provide oil and gas services in numerous
states including Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and North Dakota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clayton D. Craighead, Esq.
THE CRAIGHEAD LAW FIRM, PLLC
440 Louisiana, Suite 900
Houston, TX 77002
Tel: (832) 798-1184
Fax: (832) 553-7261
E-mail: clayton.craighead@thetxlawfirm.com
HARRELL HOSPITALITY: Bruno Sues Over Wage-and-Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
ELBA ROJAS BRUNO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HARRELL HOSPITALITY GROUP, dba HHG BILTMORE
HOTEL & SUITES, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21CV383653 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., June 25, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay wages and overtime,
failure to provide meal period, failure to provide rest break,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to provide one
day's rest, failure to keep required payroll records, and unfair
business practices.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee in
California.
Harrell Hospitality Group, doing business as HHG Biltmore Hotel &
Suites, is a property management company with its principal
executive offices located in San Jose, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Yeremian, Esq.
Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 230-8380
Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
roman@yeremianlaw.com
- and –
Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
Daniel Jonathan, Esq.
Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
CAPSTONE LAW APC
1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 556-4811
Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com
HTX SERVICES: Dunson Sues Over Field Technicians' Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT DUNSON, Plaintiff v. HTX SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:21-cv-11485-GCS-KGA (E.D. Mich., June 24, 2021) brings this
complaint on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated against the Defendant for its alleged violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff, who has worked for the Defendant as a Field
Technician, alleges that the Defendant denied him and other
similarly situated Field Technicians base and overtime wages for
the compensable travel time they incurred in traveling to and from
their first and last work locations by arbitrarily deducting 30
minutes of travel time from their wages. Despite consistently and
regularly working at least 40 hours per week for the Defendant, the
Plaintiff and other Field Technicians were not allegedly paid their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek.
HTX Services LLC provides Banks and Automatic Teller Machines
(ATMs) with technical support. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Noah S. Hurwitz, Esq.
NACHTLAW, P.C.
101 N. Main St., Suite 555
Ann Arbor, MI 48104
Tel: (734) 663-7550
E-mail: nhurwitz@nachtlaw.com
IDEXCEL INC: Underpays Junior Java Developers, Rudraraju Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HARSHA RUDRARAJU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IDEXCEL, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00761 (E.D. Va., June 24, 2021) is brought to seek
for judgment against the Defendant for damages and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Junior Java
Developer (JJD) from approximately June 30, 2020 to September 25,
2020.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated JJDs regularly worked more than 40 hours in workweek.
Specifically, the Plaintiff often worked approximately 50 to 52
hours per week. However, the Defendant did not compensate them in
accordance with the FLSA by failing to pay them their lawfully
earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times
their regular rate of pay for all hours worked more than 40 per
workweek. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant owe him overtime
wages in the sum of $2,597.64 for the period of her employment,
from approximately July 2020 through September 2020.
Idexcel, Inc. provides IT services to clients. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Powers, Esq.
Steven Anderson, Esq.
MCCLANAHAN POWERS, PLLC
8133 Leesburg Pike, Suite 130
Vienna, VA 22182
Tel: (703) 520-1326
Fax: (703) 828-0205
E-mail: rpowers@mcplegal.com
sanderson@mcplegal.com
dmurphy@mcplegal.com
ILLINOIS: Robocall Class-Action Suit Ends with $1M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
legalreader.com reports that a robocall lawsuit against former Gov.
Bruce Rauner is coming to an end with a $1 million settlement
agreement.
Robocalls. We all get them. We all get annoyed by them.
Fortunately, one robocall class-action lawsuit is coming to an end
with the announcement of a $1 million agreement. The suit was filed
against former Gov. Bruce Rauner and his campaign entity, Citizens
for Rauner, on behalf of people targeted by a "campaign robocall
from Rauner since his first campaign in 2014." The plaintiffs are
set to receive a chunk of the $1 million settlement.
The suit was filed by Peter Garvey, a resident of Illinois. He
received three pre-recorded voice mails from Rauner's campaign back
in 2018. Garvey is only one of 35,000 people or more that made up
the class members. It's yet unknown how much each person will
receive after things like administration and attorney fees are
factored in.
According to the suit, the robocalls left by Citizens for Rauner on
thousands of cellphones "encouraged people to vote for Rauner in
the upcoming March 2018 primary election." In the 30-second
message, Rauner can be heard saying, in part, "Illinois is worth
fightin' for and with real reform together we can bring back
Illinois and provide the future our children deserve. Please join
me in the fight against Mike Madigan and his special interest
allies. I'm askin' for your vote on Tuesday, March 20."
The suit noted that the messages were "left through so-called
'ringless voicemails,' which is a technology used to deliver
voicemail messages the same way as text messages." Garvey and
others argued that the ringless voicemails " violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act." A violation of that law is
defined as "making any call (other than a call made for emergency
purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called
party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice . . . . to any telephone number
assigned to a . . . . cellular telephone service. . . .." Anyone
who violates the TCPA must pay $500 in damages per violation.
In addition, the suit claimed the excessive voice messages caused
the class members harm, including "invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and
conversion." A federal judge agreed and preliminarily approved the
proposed agreement. A final hearing regarding the matter is
scheduled for September 7, 2021.
How can class members ensure they get their chunk of the
settlement, though? Well, at the moment the class members will have
to submit the necessary claim forms by August 11 to be eligible for
monetary compensation. Other than that, there is nothing else that
needs to be done at this time.[GN]
IMCD US: Patriquin Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BLAINE PATRIQUIN and NICOLLE PERALES, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IMCD US, LLC;
E.T. HORN COMPANY; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2021-01197131-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on June 28,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 8:21-cv-01127 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to pay all wages earned, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide compliant meal periods and rest
breaks, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to
timely pay wages to terminated employees, and unfair competition.
IMCD US, LLC is a global specialty chemical company headquartered
in Westlake, Ohio.
E.T. Horn Company is a distributor of raw materials and chemicals
located in La Mirada, California. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter J. Woo, Esq.
Heather B. Dillion, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 885-1360
Facsimile: (949) 885-1380
E-mail: Peter.Woo@jacksonlewis.com
Heather.Dillion@jacksonlewis.com
IMMUNOVANT INC: Andrews & Springer Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm
focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating
potential securities violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims
against Immunovant, Inc. ("Immunovant" or the "Company") (NASDAQGS:
IMVT).
If you currently own shares of Immunovant and want to receive
additional information and protect your investments free of charge,
please visit us at
http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-investigations/immunovant-class-action-investigation/
or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013.
You may also follow us on LinkedIn –
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter –
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.
Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the
world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute.
For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute Attorney
Advertising.
Contact: Craig J. Springer, Esq.
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
Toll Free: 1-800-423-6013 [GN]
IQVIA INC: Court Enters Revised Scheduling Order in Lyngaas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN J. LYNGAAS, D.D.S.,
P.L.L.C., v. IQVIA, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-02370-NIQA (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to modify scheduling order by
extending all deadlines by three months, as follows:
1. All fact discovery shall be completed by October 25, 2021.
2. All expert reports shall be due by November 22, 2021.
3. Any rebuttal expert reports are due by December 13, 2021.
4. All expert depositions shall be completed by January 12,
2022.
5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed by February
14, 2022, and any response thereto shall be filed within 30
days of the filing of the motion.
6. Any dispositive motions shall be filed within 60 days of the
issuance of this Court's ruling on any motion for class
certification. Response to the dispositive motions, if any,
shall be filed within 21 days of the filing of the motion.
Any failure to comply with this Order may result in
sanctions.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3AjKQfs at no extra charge.[CC]
JACK PARKER: Thome Files Suit in N.Y. App. Div.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against THE JACK PARKER
CORPORATION, et al. The case is styled as Kathryn Thome, Michael
Wilson, Rochelle Berliner, Irwin Reiser, Michel Perez, Inna Los,
Dario Solman, Jill Mackenzie, Cassandra Segarra Colon, Tahmena
Haque, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Petitioner v. THE JACK PARKER CORPORATION, PARKER MANAGEMENT NEW
YORK, LLC, Parker Forest Hills L.P., Parker Yellowstone L.P.,
PARKER QUEENS L.P., BPP PARKER TOWERS PROPERTY OWNER LLC,
BLACKSTONE PROPERTY PARTNERS L.P., BEAM LIVING COMPANY, Case No.
1:21-cv-03689 (N.Y. App. Div., First Judicial Department, June 30,
2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Jack Parker Corporation -- https://www.jackparker.nyc/ -- is a
real estate developer in New York City, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Julian Manuel Rodriguez, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
D: +1 212.801.9246
T: +1 212.801.9200
Email: rodriguezjul@gtlaw.com
JAMES FRANCO: Agrees to Pay $2.2M in Sexual-Misconduct Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brennan Carley at thecut.com reports that according to THR, James
Franco and "associated entities" will end up paying over $2 million
to resolve a recent putative class-action lawsuit against the actor
by former students of his at the Studio 4 Film School in New York
and Los Angeles. Sarah Tither-Kaplan and Toni Gaal brought forth
the suit in October 2019, alleging that they (and fellow students
of Franco) were the victims of fraud and sexual exploitation, and
that female participants in the actor's "Sex Scenes" class were
"encouraged to take risks with their bodies," including what were
described as "naked sex scenes" with "nudity requirements - for
women specifically," as well as "self-tapes at home, so they were
consistently getting footage of this sensitive nature of work." The
women claimed Franco "had intimidated them into performing
gratuitous sex scenes while denying them the protections of nudity
riders."
Today, Franco and associated entities have agreed to pay $2,235,000
to resolve the lawsuit, according to THR, the terms of which
necessitate that Tither-Kaplan and Gaal release their claims, and
that the other students involved in the class suit release any
fraud claims. (News of the settlement was first reported in
February 2021, though no details were made publicly available at
that time.) A Los Angeles judge will now have to decide whether or
not to sign off on the proposed settlement. All participants have
issued a joint statement as part of the settlement, which reads:
"While Defendants continue to deny the allegations in the
Complaint, they acknowledge that Plaintiffs have raised important
issues; and all parties strongly believe that now is a critical
time to focus on addressing the mistreatment of women in Hollywood.
All agree on the need to make sure that no one in the entertainment
industry - regardless of race, religion, disability, ethnicity,
background, gender or sexual orientation - faces discrimination,
harassment or prejudice of any kind."
Franco originally denied the accusations during a 2018 appearance
on The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, saying:
In my life, I pride myself on taking responsibility for things that
I've done. I have to do that to maintain my well-being. I do it
whenever I know that there's something wrong or needs to be
changed. I make it a point to do it. The things that I heard that
were on Twitter are not accurate. But I completely support people
coming out and being able to have a voice because they didn't have
a voice for so long, so I don't want to shut them down in any way.
I think it's a good thing and I support it.
Other members of the class-action suit have several months to opt
out of releasing their claims against Franco. Any unclaimed funds
from the pot ($1.341 million in total for the non-Tither-Kaplan and
-Gaal participants) are set to be delivered to the National Women's
Law Center. [GN]
JOHN AND KIRA'S: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John And Kira's, LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. John And Kira's, LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03689 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
John and Kira's -- https://www.johnandkiras.com/ -- features
gourmet chocolate gifts and artisan chocolates for all occasions,
including holiday gifts, birthday gifts and custom business
gifts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
JUST ENERGY: Enrolment & Non-Payment Issues Related Suits Underway
------------------------------------------------------------------
Just Energy Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the company continues to
defend class action suits related to its announcement on the
identification of customers' enrolment and non-payment issues.
On July 23, 2019, Just Energy announced that, as part of its
Strategic Review process, management identified customer enrolment
and non-payment issues, primarily in Texas.
In response to this announcement, and in some cases in response to
this and other subsequent related announcements, putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas and in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice, on behalf of investors that purchased
Just Energy Group Inc. securities during various periods, ranging
from November 9, 2017 through August 19, 2019.
The U.S. lawsuits have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas with one lead
plaintiff and the Ontario lawsuits have been consolidated with one
lead plaintiff.
The U.S. lawsuit seeks damages allegedly arising from violations of
the United States Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.
The Ontario lawsuit seeks damages allegedly arising from violations
of Canadian securities legislation and of common law. The Ontario
lawsuit was subsequently amended to, among other things, extend the
period to July 7, 2020.
On September 2, 2020, pursuant to Just Energy's plan of
arrangement, the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario) ordered that
all existing equity class action claimants shall be irrevocably and
forever limited solely to recovery from the proceeds of the
insurance policies payable on behalf of Just Energy or its
directors and officers in respect of any such existing equity class
action claims, and such existing equity class action claimants
shall have no right to, and shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any claim or seek any recoveries from any of the released parties
or any of their respective current or former officers and directors
in respect of any existing equity class action claims, other than
enforcing their rights to be paid by the applicable insurer(s) from
the proceeds of the applicable insurance policies. Pursuant to the
CCAA proceedings, these proceedings have been stayed.
Just Energy denies the allegations and will vigorously defend
against these claims.
Just Energy Group Inc. is a retail energy provider specializing in
electricity and natural gas commodities and bringing energy
efficient solutions and renewable energy options to customers.
Currently operating in the United States and Canada, Just Energy
serves residential and commercial customers. Just Energy is the
parent company of Amigo Energy, Filter Group Inc., Hudson Energy,
Interactive Energy Group, Tara Energy, and terrapass.
JUST ENERGY: Supreme Court Junks Petition for Certiorari in Hurt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Just Energy Group Inc. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 28, 2021, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the Supreme Court denied
Just Energy's petition for certiorari filed in the class action
suit initiated by Davina Hurt and Dominic Hill.
In March 2012, Davina Hurt and Dominic Hill filed a lawsuit against
Commerce Energy Inc., Just Energy Marketing Corp. and the Company
in the Ohio Federal Court claiming entitlement to payment of
minimum wage and overtime under Ohio wage claim laws and the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on their own behalf and
similarly situated door-to-door sales representatives who sold for
Commerce in certain regions of the United States.
The Ohio Court granted the plaintiffs' request to certify the
lawsuit as a class action.
Approximately 1,800 plaintiffs opted into the federal minimum wage
and overtime claims, and approximately 8,000 plaintiffs were
certified as part of the Ohio state overtime claims.
On October 6, 2014, the jury refused to find a willful violation
but concluded that certain individuals were not properly classified
as outside salespeople in order to qualify for an exemption under
the minimum wage and overtime requirements.
On September 28, 2018, the Ohio Court issued a final judgment,
opinion and order.
Just Energy filed its appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit (on October 25, 2018 and provided a bond to the Ohio Court
to cover the potential damages.
On August 31, 2020, the Appeals Court denied the appeal in a 2-1
decision. On February 2, 2021, Just Energy filed a petition for
certiorari seeking the United States Supreme Court review to
resolve the newly created circuit split with the Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit unanimous decision in Flood v. Just Energy,
904 F.3d 219 (2d Cir. 2018) and with the inconsistency with the
Supreme Court's recent decision in Encino Motorcars, LLC v Navarro,
138 S. Ct. 1134, 1142 (2018), with broad, national, unsustainable
implications for all employers who have outside sales employees.
On June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court denied Just Energy's petition
for certiorari.
The Company accrued approximately $5.7 million in the last quarter
of fiscal 2021 in connection with this matter and expects to make
this payment promptly.
Just Energy Group Inc. is a retail energy provider specializing in
electricity and natural gas commodities and bringing energy
efficient solutions and renewable energy options to customers.
Currently operating in the United States and Canada, Just Energy
serves residential and commercial customers. Just Energy is the
parent company of Amigo Energy, Filter Group Inc., Hudson Energy,
Interactive Energy Group, Tara Energy, and Terrapass.
JUUL LABS: Dover School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth
---------------------------------------------------------------
DOVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES
MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI;
ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 3:21-cv-04941 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Dover Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices
located at 201 North Taylor Street in Dover, Oklahoma.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Entices Youth to Use E-Cigarette, School District Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERSIDE-BROOKFIELD HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 208, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS,
INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS
PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA
CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP
MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04884 (N.D. Cal.,
June 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Riverside-Brookfield High School District No. 208 is a high school
district with its offices located at 160 Ridgewood Road in
Riverside, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINCOLN COUNTY SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04943 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Lincoln County Schools is a unified school district with its
offices located at 909 Main Avenue South in Fayetteville,
Tennessee.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Liable to Youth E-Cigarette Crisis, School District Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ESSEXVILLE-HAMPTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04933 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Essexville-Hampton Public Schools is a unified school district with
its offices located at 303 Pine Street in Essexville, Michigan.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth in Ohio, School Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
WADSWORTH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS,
INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH;
RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA
GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04939 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Wadsworth City School District is a unified school district with
its offices located on Broad Street in Wadsworth, Ohio.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over E-Cigarette Addiction in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
OCEANSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX
LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG
HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC;
ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04940 (N.D. Cal., June 28, 2021) is a
class action against the Defendants for negligence, gross
negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit says.
Oceanside Unified School District is a unified school district with
its offices located at 2111 Mission Ave. in Oceanside, California.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: School Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
EVANSTON-SKOKIE COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 65, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
JUUL LABS, INC. F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN;
NICHOLAS PRITZKER; HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.;
ALTRIA CLIENT SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and
PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04887 (N.D.
Cal., June 25, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law
and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, says the suit.
Evanston-Skokie Community Consolidated School District No. 65 is a
unified school district with its offices located at 1500 McDaniel
Avenue in Evanston, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
JUUL LABS: Triggers E-Cigarette Addiction Among Youth, School Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARGO COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 217, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUUL LABS, INC.
F/K/A PAX LABS, INC.; JAMES MONSEES; ADAM BOWEN; NICHOLAS PRITZKER;
HOYOUNG HUH; RIAZ VALANI; ALTRIA GROUP, INC.; ALTRIA CLIENT
SERVICES LLC; ALTRIA GROUP DISTRIBUTION COMPANY; and PHILIP MORRIS
USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-04893 (N.D. Cal., June 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
gross negligence, and violations of Public Nuisance Law and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants used three tactics to
maintain market dominance in the cigarette industry: (1) product
design to maximize addiction, (2) mass deception, and (3) targeting
of youth. Defendants JUUL Labs and Adam Bowen designed an
e-cigarette device allegedly intended to create and sustain
addiction, but without the stigma associated with cigarettes and
promoted them to vulnerable young population. JUUL Labs and other
Defendants developed and implemented a marketing scheme to mislead
users into believing that JUUL products contained less nicotine
than they actually do and were healthy and safe. The Defendants
enticed newcomers to nicotine with kid-friendly flavors without
ensuring the flavoring additives were safe for inhalation. The
Defendants targeted the youth market by placing vaporized campaigns
on youth-oriented websites and media and using influencers and
affiliates to amplify their message to a teenage audience. The
Defendants have successfully caused more young people to start
using e-cigarettes, creating a youth e-cigarette epidemic and
public health crisis, the suit contends.
Argo Community High School District No. 217 is a school district
with its offices located at 7329 W. 63rd St., Summit, Illinois.
JUUL Labs, Inc., formerly known as Pax Labs, Inc., is an American
electronic cigarette company, with its principal place of business
in San Francisco, California.
Altria Group, Inc. is a producer of tobacco products, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Altria
Group, Inc., with its principal place of business in Richmond,
Virginia.
Altria Client Services LLC is a tobacco company, with its principal
place of business in Richmond, Virginia.
Altria Group Distribution Company is a tobacco company, with its
principal place of business in Richmond, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Frantz, Esq.
William B. Shinoff, Esq.
FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
402 W. Broadway, Ste. 860
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-5945
Facsimile: (619) 525-7672
E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com
KIDSEMBRACE LLC: Class Cert. Bid Filing Continued to August 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY WHITTINGTON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
KIDSEMBRACE, LLC, a California limited liability company, Case No.
2:21-cv-01830-JFW-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John F. Walter
entered an order:
1. The deadline for Plaintiff to file her motion for class
certification is continued from July 14, 2021 to
August 30, 2021;
2. The date for Defendant KidsEmbrace, LLC, to file its
opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
is set for September 20, 2021;
3. The date for Plaintiff to file her reply on her motion for
class certification is set for October 4, 2021;
4. The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for class certification
shall be heard on October 25, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3ynRiAl at no extra charge.[CC]
KNICKERBOCKER CLOTHING: Fischler Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knickerbocker
Clothing Co. LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler,
Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
v. Knickerbocker Clothing Co. LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03699
(E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Knickerbocker -- https://knickerbocker.nyc/ -- offers collections
of apparel and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq.
LIPSKY LOWE LLP
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830
New York, NY 10170
Phone: (212) 392-4772
Fax: (212) 444-1030
Email: doug@lipskylowe.com
LEDGER SAS: Chu Voluntarily Dismisses Claims
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN CHU, et al., v.
LEDGER SAS, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-02470-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, give notice that Plaintiff John Chu voluntarily
dismisses his claims in the case, without prejudice, against all
Defendants.
Mr. Chu reserves his rights as a member ofany class that may be
certified in this litigation. As Defendants have not filed an
answer or a motion for summary judgment in this proceeding and
Plaintiffs have not filed a motion for class certification,
dismissal without prejudice is appropriate without a court order
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(B).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated June 30, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/367BntI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
Jason H. Kim, Esq.
Matthew S. Weiler, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE
COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
E-mail: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
JKim@schneiderwallace.com
MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
Kyle W. Roche, Esq.
Richard Cipolla, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
99 Park Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (646) 970-7509
E-mail: kyle@rcfllp.com
rcipolla@rcfllp.com
- and -
Velvel Freedman, Esq.
Constantine P. Economides, Esq.
ROCHE FREEDMAN LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 971-5943
E-mail: vel@rcfllp.com
ceconomides@rcfllp.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Howell Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW HOWELL, on behalf
of himself and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation;
LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 1:18-cv-01404-AWI-BA (E.D. Cal.),
the Plaintiff will move the Court on January 31, 2022 to enter an
order certifying the following class:
"All non-exempt hourly workers who are currently employees, or
formerly have been employed, as non-exempt hourly employees at
Leprino’s Tracy plant in Tracy, California, at any time within
four years prior to the filing of the original complaint until
the date the Court grants certification."
Leprino is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3xcbc13 at no extra charge.[CC]
The Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Putative Class, are:
R. Rex Parris, Esq.
Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
John M. Bickford, Esq.
Ryan A. Crist, Esq.
PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, CA 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
E-mail: rrparris@parrislawyers.com
kszeto@parrislawyers.com
rcrist@parrislawyers.com
jbickford@parrislawyers.com
- and -
Eric Rouen, Esq.
rouenlaw@att.net
THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM
9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (213) 291-3333
Facsimile: (610) 813-4579
LIFE LINE: Underpays Health Service Coordinators, Laird Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LANETTE LAIRD and JESSICA ELLIOTT, on their behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFE LINE SCREENING OF
AMERICA LTD., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-01244-SL (N.D. Ohio, June
24, 2021) bring this complaint against the Defendant pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act for its alleged unlawful employment
practices and policies.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as Health Service
Coordinators. Laird began working full-time in or around August
2019, while Elliot began working full-time in or around November
2018. Both Plaintiffs currently remain in their position.
The Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated Health
Service Coordinators consistently worked more than 40 hours in a
workweek. Specifically, the Defendant required them to work "off
the clock" in order to meet deadlines. However, the Defendant
prohibited them from logging more than 40 hours of work in a
workweek. As a result, they were not paid overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Plaintiffs
claim.
Life Line Screening of America Ltd. is a preventive health
screening provider. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rachel Sabo Friedmann, Esq.
Peter G. Friedmann, Esq.
Jamie R. Bailey, Esq.
THE FRIEDMANN FIRM LLC
1457 S. High. St.
Columbus, OH 43207
Tel: (614) 610-9756
Fax: (614) 737-9812
E-mail: Rachel@TFFLegal.com
Pete@TFFLegal.com
Jamie@TheFriedmannFirm.com
LYONS DOUGHTY: Court Temporarily Terminates Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADLINGER v. LYONS DOUGHTY
& VELDHUIS P.C., Case No. 3:19-cv-21117 (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge
Freda L. Wolfson entered an order temporarily terminating motion to
certify class.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion, LLC v.
Ramirez, the parties are directed to submit supplemental briefing
on the issue of standing as to the putative class members.
The Plaintiff shall submit his brief by July 14, 2021, and
Defendant shall submit its response by July 28, 2021. The Motion to
Certify Class is administratively terminated pending briefing and
will be re-listed at the completion of briefing,says Judge
Wolfson.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act involving consumer credit.
Lyons Doughty operates as a law firm.[CC]
MARYLAND: Faces Suit Over Unemployment Benefits Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Sofastaii, writing for WMAR, reports that ten more states
are ending enhanced unemployment benefits. Arkansas, Florida,
Georgia, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Texas and Utah are ending the programs. It's expected to impact 2.5
million workers.
Twelve states already ended the enhanced benefits. Another handful
of states, including Maryland, will drop the program before it
expires in September.
Governor Hogan decided to end the federal benefits in Maryland on
July 3.
A class-action lawsuit filed on June 24 could reverse the
governor's decision.
The Maryland Unemployed Workers Union is seeking an emergency
temporary restraining order to continue federal unemployment
benefits.
The attorney representing claimants hoped to hear from the
Baltimore City Circuit Court on
June 28.
"I hope the court will be prudent here and handle the situation
correctly and we'll hear from them on June 28, either a scheduling
order or just an update," said Alec Summerfield, pro bono attorney
for the Maryland Unemployed Workers Union.
The lawsuit is also asking the court to order the state to release
any benefits withheld from claimants, to adjudicate claims faster,
and to adequately communicate why a claim was denied.
Claimants in other states have filed similar lawsuits. On June 25,
a judge in Indiana sided with jobless workers and ordered benefits
to continue until the court makes a final decision.
"I actually am hopeful, especially the fact that the judge in
Indiana said the governor could not end federal benefits that's
huge so we'll be hoping for that here," said Summerfield.
Summerfield added that if the class is certified by the judge, any
claimant who wants to join the lawsuit will have the opportunity to
sign on. [GN]
MARYLAND: Lawsuit to Stop Hogan's Decision to Halt Unemployment
---------------------------------------------------------------
wbaltv.com reports that a federal judge will hear a class action
lawsuit case aimed at stopping Gov. Larry Hogan's decision to halt
unemployment benefits.
While Maryland unemployment COVID-19 benefits are set to end this,
a judge's decision could change that.
"They can't pay their car payments. There are people's homes in
foreclosure," said Sharon Black, of the Unemployed Workers Union.
A push to keep the federal money coming to those unemployed due to
the pandemic continues as the Unemployed Workers Union gathered
outside of the circuit courthouse in downtown Baltimore with their
pleas to the governor.
"This is a desperate time and we need action. The people that we
work for need these benefits," said Alec Summerfield, attorney for
the Unemployed Workers' Union.
The group filed a class-action lawsuit last Thursday, aiming to
stop Hogan's decision to halt unemployment benefits come.
But in a last-minute move, the governor's office confirmed the
state has filed to move the case to federal court.
"The reason we are in federal court is because, this morning, I was
served by an assistant attorney general working for Attorney
General Brian Frosh with a notice of removal to federal court
because of 'federal issues' in this case. Now, there's no doubt
there are federal issues, but it was our belief that the state
court was perfectly capable of handling them," Summerfield said.
A federal judge is now set to hear the case.
But despite what comes of the ruling, the group said their fight
will stay the course until relief is given to thousands in the
state, struggling to stay afloat.
"Not one single Maryland unemployed worker will be left behind in
our quest for justice for everybody, no matter what the courts say
or don't say. Of course, we urge them to do the right thing. But
truthfully, Gov. Hogan, do the right thing now," Black said.
The group said no matter the judge's decision, they will hold a
rally outside of the state labor department in Baltimore. [GN]
MAXIMUS INC: Brickman Sues Over Customers' Info Unauthorized Access
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES P. BRICKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAXIMUS, INC. and MAXIMUS US SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03822-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, June 25,
2021) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
negligence per se, declaratory judgment, breach of confidence,
breach of contract, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to implement and
maintain reasonable safeguards and comply with industry-standard
data security practices which resulted to an authorized access of a
Maximus server by cyber criminals. The data breach exposed the
personally identifiable information (PII) of the Defendants'
clients, particularly healthcare providers. As a result of the
Defendants' alleged omissions, the Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated healthcare providers are at a significant risk
of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related
fraud into the indefinite future.
Maximus, Inc. is an American outsourcing company that provides
business process services to government health and human services
agencies, headquartered in Reston, Virginia.
Maximus US Services, Inc. is a provider of program management and
consulting services to state and local governments, headquartered
in Reston, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
60 South Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com
- and –
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Mark A. Clifford, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
mclifford@tzlegal.com
MCKINSEY & COMPANY: Cannon Township Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CANNON TOWNSHIP, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated local governmental entities v. MCKINSEY &
COMPANY, INC.; MCKINSEY & COMPANY, INC. UNITED STATES; and MCKINSEY
& COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C., Case No. 1:21-cv-00314, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on June 28, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04536-CRB to the proceeding.
In this class suit, the Plaintiffs seek actual damages caused by
the opioid epidemic, including but not limited to (1) costs for
providing medical care, additional therapeutic and prescription
drug purchases, and other treatments for patients suffering from
opioid-related addiction or disease, including overdoses and
deaths; (2) costs for providing treatment, counseling and
rehabilitation services; (3) costs for providing treatment of
infants born with opioid-related medical conditions; (4) costs of
providing care for children whose parents suffer from
opioid-related disability or incapacitation; (5) costs associated
with law enforcement and public safety relating to the opioid
epidemic; and (6) costs associated with drug court and other
resources expended through the judicial system.
Cannon Township is a Michigan local governmental entity.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. is a management consultant company, with a
principal place of business located at 711 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States is a management consultant
company, with a principal place of business located at 55 E 52nd
Street, New York, New York.
McKinsey & Company, Inc. Washington, D.C. is a management
consulting firm, with its principal place of business in
Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael D. Grabhorn, Esq.
Andrew M. Grabhorn, Esq.
GRABHORN LAW | INSURED RIGHTS
2525 Nelson Miller Parkway, Suite 107
Louisville, KY 40223
Telephone: (502) 244-9331
Facsimile: (502) 244-9334
E-mail: m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com
- and –
Troy W. Haney, Esq.
HANEY LAW PC
300 East Fulton
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
Telephone: (616) 235-2300
Facsimile: (616) 459-0137
E-mail: thaney@troyhaneylaw.com
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: BlueTEC Emissions Settlement Gets Prelim. Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes-Benz emissions settlement has been preliminarily approved
after customers alleged in the Mercedes emissions lawsuit these
vehicles were equipped with emission control systems that caused
the vehicles to emit more nitrogen oxides than permitted by clean
air laws.
2014-2016 Mercedes-Benz E250 BlueTEC
2011-2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 BlueTEC
2009 Mercedes-Benz GL320 BlueTEC
2010-2016 Mercedes-Benz GL350 BlueTEC
2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE300d
2016 Mercedes-Benz GLE350d
2013-2015 Mercedes-Benz GLK250 BlueTEC
2015 Mercedes-Benz ML250 BlueTEC
2009 Mercedes-Benz ML320 BlueTEC
2010-2014 Mercedes-Benz ML350 BlueTEC
2009 Mercedes-Benz R320 BlueTEC
2010-2012 Mercedes-Benz R350 BlueTEC
2012-2013 Mercedes-Benz S350 BlueTEC
2014-2016 Mercedes-Benz or Freightliner Sprinter (4-cylinder)
2010-2016 Mercedes-Benz or Freightliner Sprinter (6-cylinder)
The plaintiffs also claim Mercedes-Benz intentionally misled
consumers about the vehicles that were allegedly easy on the
environment.
Mercedes denies all legal claims and denies all allegations of
wrongdoing or liability.
Mercedes Emissions Settlement Agreement
To be eligible for a cash payment from the class action settlement,
a current owner or lessee must first have an "Approved Emission
Modification" (AEM) installed in their vehicle.
An AEM is an emission control system modification approved by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air
Resources Board (CARB). The AEMs are the result of a separate
settlement between Mercedes and federal and California regulators
(US-CA Consent Decree).
Additionally, a customer must submit a valid claim to receive a
cash payment from the emissions settlement.
— Current Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees: If no former
owner/lessee submits a valid claim for the same vehicle, the
customer can receive $3,290 from Mercedes, and possibly $300 from
the Bosch settlement.
— Current Mercedes-Benz owners and lessees: If a former
owner/lessee submits a valid claim for the same vehicle, or if the
current owner/lessee begins owning or leasing after September 14,
2020, the customer can receive $2,467.50 from Mercedes, and
possibly $225 from the Bosch settlement.
— Former Mercedes owners/lessees may receive $822.50 from the
automaker and possibly $75 from Bosch.
It's unknown how much Mercedes-Benz will pay under the emissions
settlement because the amount depends on how many customers submit
valid claims.
Attorneys for Mercedes owners are expected to receive more than $83
million regarding the Mercedes-Benz settlement, and the attorneys
will also receive an amount up to 25% of the valid claims submitted
in the Bosch class action settlement.
However, Bosch emissions settlement payments to customers will be
reduced up to 25% for those attorney fees and costs.
A Mercedes-Benz emissions settlement final fairness hearing is
scheduled for July 12, 2021.
The Mercedes-Benz emissions settlement is taking place in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey: In re Mercedes-Benz
Emissions Litigation.
The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman, Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., and SeegerWeiss. [GN]
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Class Action Over Defective GLE 450 SUVs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a
Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 class action lawsuit alleges the SUVs suffer
from problems with the electrical systems and 48-volt batteries.
Mercedes GLE 450 vehicles allegedly suffer from no-start
conditions, a problem the automaker allegedly knows about.
The Mercedes class action lawsuit includes consumers who purchased
or leased a 2021 or older GLE 450 SUV "manufactured or assembled or
distributed by defendants, with the vehicle being purchased, leased
or registered in New Jersey."
The plaintiff says he purchased a 2021 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 in
October 2020 for the purchase price of $76,918.36,
The plaintiff says his Mercedes vehicle has went through three
repair attempts and spent 47 days at the dealership. All those
repairs related to electrical issues and failures to start.
In addition to failures to start, the plaintiff says his GLE 450
also suffered problems with the dashboard display losing power as
it rebooted and restarted.
The plaintiff also claims his vehicle has lost value due to the
repair attempts.
Mercedes Allegedly Knew About GLE 450 Battery Issues
According to the class action, Mercedes knew the vehicles allegedly
had defects long before consumers purchased the GLE 450 SUVs.
Mercedes-Benz has allegedly issued at least four technical service
bulletins (TSBs) related to electrical problems, with two of those
bulletins related to vehicles that wouldn't start.
The class action lawsuit says Mercedes issued a TSB in January 2020
regarding 2021 GLE 450 SUVs and the 48-volt batteries. Then more
bulletins were issued related to starting problems and the need to
replace the 48-volt batteries.
In court documents, Mercedes says the plaintiff doesn't allege he
paid any money for his repairs and he doesn't claim he currently
experiences any problems with his GLE 450.
The Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey: Gerald
Scattaglia, Jr., v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, et al.
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of Lewis G. Adler,
Perlman DePetris Consumer Law, and Robison Lemon Law Group LLC.
[GN]
MHR FUND MANAGEMENT: Faces Pluviose Suit Over Shareholders' Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------
MCBREAKLEY PLUVIOSE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARK H. RACHESKY, M.D.; MICHAEL B.
TARGOFF; JOHN D. HARKEY, JR.; ARTHUR L. SIMON; JOHN P. STENBIT;
JANET T. YEUNG; MHR FUND MANAGEMENT LLC; MHR HOLDINGS LLC; and
LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2021-0541
(Del. Ch., June 21, 2021) is an action arising from a merger in
connection with which a controlling stockholder breached its
fiduciary duties by attempting to circumvent a post-trial
judgement, and a board of directors failed to subject the
transaction to the statutorily required vote under Section 203 of
the Delaware General Corporation Law.
According to the complaint, MHR Fund Management LLC ("MHR") has
sought to combine Loral Space & Communications Inc. ("Loral") and
Telesat Canada ("Telesat"). When the process dragged on for years
and MHR faced resistance from the one-member Loral special
committee (the "Special Committee" or "Committee"), Rachesky
threatened to circumvent the Committee. Ultimately, the Special
Committee caved and, on November 23, 2020, the Loral Board approved
a combination of Loral and Telesat (the "Proposed Transaction"),
through which MHR will exchange the approximately 9.5 million
shares of Loral Non-Voting Common Stock (i.e., the same shares that
the Court stripped of voting rights in the Post-Trial Opinion) for
voting shares of the combined company. Despite the significant
transfer of voting power from Loral's public stockholders to MHR in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, MHR is not compensating
Loral's public stockholders for this valuable benefit, the suit
says.
Additionally, weeks, if not months, prior to the time that the
Loral Board approved the Proposed Transaction, MHR, Telesat and the
Public Sector Pension Investment Board ("PSP"), a Canadian entity
that holds a majority of the voting power of Telesat, reached
agreements, arrangements and/or understandings ("AAUs") regarding
(a) MHR's willingness to pledge the substantial majority of its
Loral Voting Common Stock in the support of the Proposed
Transaction and (b) the Proposed Transaction's material terms.
Thus, ownership of MHR's Loral Voting Common Stock is attributed to
PSP and Telesat pursuant to and for purposes of Section 203,
rendering PSP and Telesat "interested stockholders" of the
Company.
Accordingly, in order to comply with Section 203, the Proposed
Transaction must receive the affirmative vote of at least 66 2/3%
of the outstanding Voting Common Stock of Loral (the "Section 203
Vote") other than MHR, PSP and Telesat. However, the Proposed
Transaction is only conditioned on a majority-of-the-minority vote
of Loral's stockholders other than MHR, PSP and Telesat, added the
suit.
MHR Fund Management LLC operates as private equity firm. The
Company makes distressed debt investments in various sectors. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
David M. Sborz, Esq.
Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4957
-and-
Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER& TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
-and-
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
KASKELA LAW LLC
18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
Newtown Square, PA 19073
Telephone: (484) 258-1585
MHV PIZZA: Dean Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD DEAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated,
Plaintiff v. MHV PIZZA, L.L.C. d/b/a "DOMINO'S PIZZA" and MARIO
VARELA, Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00082-NBB-DAS (N.D. Miss.,
June 24, 2021) brings this complaint as a collective action against
the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a delivery driver
since approximately June 2019.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have implemented a flawed
reimbursement policy, which reimburses delivery drivers on a
per-delivery basis that equates to rates substantially below the
IRS business mileage reimbursement rate and/or much less than a
reasonable approximation of their drivers' automobile expenses.
Additionally, the Defendants' failure to adequately reimburse
automobile expenses resulted to the diminishing of their delivery
drivers' net wages beneath the federal minimum wage requirements,
which constitute a "kickback" to the Defendants. The Defendants
allegedly enjoys ill-gained profits at the expense of their
employees.
MHV Pizza, L.L.C. operates several Domino's franchise stores. Mario
Varela is an owner, officer, and director of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William B. Ryan, Esq.
DONATI LAW, PLLC
1545 Union Avenue
Memphis, TN 38104
Tel: (901) 278-1004
Fax: (901) 278-3111
E-mail: billy@donatilaw.com
MICHAEL KENNEWICK: Bid to Remand Class Suit to State Court Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MEI-JUI LIN et al., v.
MICHAEL KENNEWICK, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01029-RSL (W.D. Wash),
the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered an order that:
1. Plaintiffs' "Motion to Remand to State Court" is granted.
2. Plaintiffs' request for an award of fees and costs is
denied.
3. The Defendants' "Motion to Transfer Venue", "Motion to
Dismiss" for failure to state a claim, "Motion to File Over-
Length Motion to Dismiss", and plaintiffs "Motion for Relief
from Deadline Re Class Certification" are denied as moot.
4. The Defendants' motions to seal are granted.
This litigation commenced in King County Superior Court in 2018. On
August 31, 2018, the defendants removed the case to federal court
based on diversity jurisdiction, and the case was assigned to the
Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein, United States District Judge. See
Peterson v. Kennewick, Case No. C18-1302BJR. The Plaintiff David
Peterson moved to remand the case to state court, and defendants
Michael Kennewick, Richard Kennewick, and Robert Kennewick moved to
dismiss plaintiff's claims against them. On December 13, 2018,
Judge Rothstein granted plaintiff's motion to remand and
accordingly denied defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and as moot. The case was remanded to
King County Superior Court.
On June 5, 2020, plaintiff David Peterson filed the current Second
Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), adding plaintiff Mei-Jui Lin
and asserting a claim on behalf of class members, and naming Todd
Kenck and Arnold Gia-Shuh Jang as additional defendants. The
Defendants Michael Kennewick, Richard Kennewick, Robert Kennewick,
Arnold Gia-Shuh Jang, and Todd Kenck removed the SAC from King
County Superior Court on July 1, 2020. The Plaintiffs move to
remand to state court, on the ground that this Court lacks
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The
Defendants filed motions to seal exhibits related to their
opposition to plaintiffs' motion to remand.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3dB522t at no extra charge.[CC]
MIGUEL ABREU: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Miguel Abreu Gallery,
LLC. The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated v. Miguel Abreu Gallery,
LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03690 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Miguel Abreu Gallery -- http://miguelabreugallery.com/-- is a
contemporary art gallery based in New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
MINIM INC: Purcell Julie Investigates Fiduciary Duty Breach Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated to
representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a potential
breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of directors of
Minim, Inc., formerly known as Zoom Telephonics, Inc. (OTC: MINM).
If you are a shareholder of Minim Inc. and are interested in
obtaining additional information regarding this investigation, free
of charge, please visit us at:
http://pjlfirm.com/minim-inc/
You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000. One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://www.pjlfirm.com-- is a law
firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide
who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty and
other types of corporate misconduct. For more information about the
firm and its attorneys, please visit http://pjlfirm.com.Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ruling Paves Way for Paying College Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Farmer, writing for Richmond-Times Dispatch, reports that look
for major college athletes, at least football and men's basketball
players, to be paid employees easily within a decade, perhaps much
sooner.
You probably have heard about the U.S. Supreme Court's recent 9-0
ruling against the NCAA in a college sports antitrust case. Buried
in the less publicized parts of the case is the future of
amateurism in big-time college sports.
To explain why, some background is necessary.
This case was a class action brought by lead plaintiff Shawne
Alston, a former West Virginia University football running back. He
challenged NCAA amateurism rules, both the NCAA prohibition on
schools paying athletes and its restrictive rules on
education-related benefits.
After a lengthy trial, the trial court issued a split decision. It
held the NCAA violated antitrust law with its restrictive rules on
education-related benefits. That decision was affirmed by the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, in this case, the Supreme Court.
Because NCAA restrictions on education-related benefits must now be
pared back, colleges recruiting the most talented athletes will now
compete to offer better education-related benefits to win those
recruits.
But that's not the sexy part.
The trial court split the result by ruling the NCAA could continue
to ban paying athletes, as many fans like college sports because
they are competitions between unpaid students.
If those athletes were paid professionals, the trial court found
interest in college sports would wane, which would result in fewer
ticket sales and less TV revenue for college sports. It found
college sports wouldn't compete as effectively with pro sports for
entertainment dollars.
The court of appeals upheld that ruling. Interestingly, Alston's
attorney did not appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, so the
high court couldn't address it.
This rationale against paying players wouldn't come out the same in
a trial today.
That's because college athletes will be able to profit from their
names, images and likenesses, often abbreviated NIL, starting this
summer, so they now effectively will be professional athletes.
A celebrity, such as a prominent athlete, can financially exploit
NIL rights doing things like paid endorsements on social media and
TV commercials.
Nineteen states have enacted laws authorizing college athletes to
earn money using name, image and likeness, while the laws in six
states take effect this summer. These new laws will force the NCAA
to release a new rule enabling college athletes to earn money that
way.
That means a new class action antitrust lawsuit challenging the
NCAA rules against paying players would almost certainly succeed,
because the rationale that the public wants college players to be
amateurs is killed by NIL.
The Supreme Court also questioned the legitimacy of the antitrust
analysis used by the district court concerning paying players.
Effectively, the trial court held colleges can conspire (through
the NCAA) to set wage rates in the labor market for college
athletes at zero so the colleges can compete more effectively in a
different market, which is selling tickets and TV rights to
sporting events.
The Supreme Court cast doubt on the antitrust legitimacy of making
such a tradeoff.
Yet, because Alston didn't appeal to the Supreme Court the NCAA
rules against paying athletes, it couldn't rule on this issue.
It's possible NCAA amateurism rules will be killed before the
courts resolve the inevitable next antitrust challenge to them.
It takes years for litigation to wind through federal courts.
Perhaps various states will pass laws enabling the paying of
players, or perhaps the federal government will.
Maybe the NCAA will abandon amateurism on its own terms to attempt
to control how professionalism is implemented rather than having it
decided by various legislatures.
As long as we have big-time college athletics, eventually big-time
college athletes will become paid employees, at least in the
revenue-positive sports of football and men's basketball. It's not
a question of whether that will happen, but only when and precisely
how.
Colleges can still have amateur athletics. A repeal of NCAA
amateurism rules would not require paying players, but good luck
landing elite pre-professional prospects without doing so.
Remaining amateur would require colleges to recruit students who
want to go to college primarily to get a college education and
degree and for whom athletics will be only an extracurricular
activity and likely not a post-graduation profession.
Colleges can have big-time athletics or amateurism but, soon, not
both. [GN]
NETFLIX INC: Cities of Plano, Frisco Join Suit Over Franchise Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dalton Laferney, writing for local profile, reports that in the
first episode of "The Real Housewives of Dallas," LeeAnne Locken, a
former Miss USA finalist, teaches viewers to be serious. Brandi
Redmon, a former Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, and Stephanie Hollman,
a Dallas-based entrepreneur, are on camera attending a charity
event talking about "pooping and farting" as they eat hors
d'oeuvres.
LeeAnne, side-eyeing the girls and clearly listening in on their
conversation, says of the silliness, "It's a little Plano in
here."
In her cutaway interview, LeeAnne, who eventually left the show,
drags Brandi, who lived in Plano at the time of filming, and
Stephanie for how they act at North Texas charity events, using the
lavish social gatherings to drink and cut up. "I don't think
they're very serious about it," she says. "You either take it
serious, or go home."
Plano got a little more serious.
Plano city officials announced June 14 that they were joining other
municipalities around the country, including Dallas and Frisco, and
suing streaming companies such as Disney+, Netflix, Hulu -- which
offers "The Real Housewives of Dallas."
They're asking that streaming services also be responsible for
paying a franchise fee of 5 percent of each company's gross revenue
similar to cable companies, which offer their infrastructure for
streaming services to use.
In Plano, city spokesperson Steve Stoler addressed a request to
interview the city manager with a prepared statement from the city
attorney's office.
"The City Attorney's office is asking the City Council to authorize
Plano to join the City of Dallas and other cities in Texas in a
lawsuit against streaming video services such as Netflix and Hulu
to require them to pay a franchise tax of 5 percent of their gross
revenue for use of the public rights of way which is the same fee
imposed on cable video providers," the statement reads. "State law
requires city contingency legal fee contracts to be authorized by
the City Council and Texas Attorney General."
Plano, Frisco, and Dallas weren't the first Texas cities seeking to
tap into the extremely popular streaming services revenue. Last
year, as local budget holes emerged in the wake of the economic
shutdown due to the pandemic, New Boston sued Netflix and Hulu,
seeking to establish the streaming services as basically the same
as any cable provider.
Because they utilize DSL or fiber optic cables to connect local
customers to the internet, New Boston alleged the streaming
companies operate just like DIRECTV and should have to pay
franchise taxes. Since they allegedly failed to obtain the
authority to operate from the Texas Utility Commission, New Boston
and other cities want Netflix and Hulu to get the same permits as
traditional cable providers and pay each city a fee each quarter to
continue operating.
It's unclear why they waited this long to sue since Netflix has
been using those services since 2007. Netflix obviously disagrees
with the cities' claims and argues that cities like Plano, Frisco
and Dallas are simply looking to create a way "to tax digital video
content provided over the Internet in violation of state and
federal law," according to a filing, as reported by the Dallas
Business Journal in a Feb. 22 report.
Earlier this year, the Dallas City Council voted for suing
streaming companies for potentially millions of dollars in fees. A
Dallas spokesperson told the Business Journal in the Feb. 22 report
that the streaming companies didn't apply for the state-issued
certificate of franchise authority under Texas Utility Code Chapter
66.
The plaintiff cities, arguing under the Texas Public Utility
Regulatory Act, claim video streaming companies who have customers
in a given municipality should be held to the same legal standard
as cable providers, which have had to pay these franchise taxes
under the law.
Like Dallas city attorneys, Plano's have contracted with multiple
law firms that are suing streaming companies Netflix, Hulu and
Disney+ for municipalities across the United States. The firms,
McKool Smith, Ashcroft Sutton Reyes and Korean Tillery, point out
that streaming companies use land-based facilities and wirelines
throughout cities to send customers episodes of "Real Housewives"
to their devices at home, and should have to pay for the use.
At a mid-June council meeting, Frisco city leaders followed Dallas'
and Plano's lead. Frisco spokesperson Dana Baird did not answer a
request for an interview.
Though Plano and Frisco are just now joining the class action in
suing streaming companies, law firms representing Netflix and Hulu
have had the chance to fire back in court. In the New Boston case,
lawyers for the companies say the suit will set a precedent that
will require all companies who use the internet to reach customers
to pay cities taxes for using local infrastructure.
So that means the access to visit the Shop By Bravo website to buy
a LeeAnne Locken mug -- "I'M A TRUE TEXAN, NO BULL BUT ALL HORNS"
-- might start costing more. The companies argue any new fees will
be passed down to consumers. [GN]
NOVUME SOLUTIONS: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 30 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Rekor
Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. ("Rekor" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: REKR) securities between April 12, 2019 and May
25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Rekor investors have
until August 30, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
Investors suffering losses on their Rekor investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On May 10, 2021, a Texas bill authorizing the establishment of a
state uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion ("UVED") was left
pending in state committee, leading to significant market
speculation that the bill was dead. The same day, during a
conference call, Rekor indicated that the Company may not secure a
UVED agreement with Texas.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.20, or 27.5%, to
close at $13.71 per share on May 10, 2021, thereby injuring
investors. The stock price continued to decline during the next
trading session by $2.45, or nearly 18%, to close at $11.26 per
share on May 11, 2021.
Then on May 26, 2021, Western Edge published a report entitled
"Rekor Systems: Lackluster Growth Runway and Exaggerated Insurance
Scheme Raise Substantial Downside Risk," alleging, among other
things, that the Company's "realized results suggest management's
potential revenue guidance could be overstated by up to 80%." The
report also noted that Rekor's predecessor in the Oklahoma UVED
partnership had exited it because "the program is not economically
feasible."
The same day, Mariner Research Group published a report entitled
"REKR - Government documents do not support investor expectations."
According to the report, "government documentation . . . shows that
REKR's revenue opportunities are likely a fraction of what
investors expect." For example, "Oklahoma government budgets imply
that REKR's much vaunted UVED program is a sub $2MM revenue
opportunity--almost 96% less than the > $40MM in revenue
intimated by Rekor's CEO."
On this news, Rekor's stock price fell $0.44 per share, or 3.93%,
to close at $10.77 per share on May 26, 2021.
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) Rekor's
automatic license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and
UVED-related business is outclassed by global competitors with an
established, dominant market share; (2) it was unlikely that states
would pass legislation authorizing deals similar to Rekor's
Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, inter alia, state and local
privacy laws and related public concerns; (3) Rekor's UVED
partnership was not as profitable as Defendants had led investors
to believe because of known impediments to enrollment rates and
costs associated with the partnership; (4) accordingly, Rekor had
overstated its potential revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR-
and UVED-related business prospects; 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 Rekor 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]
OCUGEN INC. Portnoy Law Reminds of August 17 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN) investors
that acquired shares between February 2, 2021 and June 2, 2021.
Investors have until August 17, 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 here to join the case.
The investigation focuses on whether Ocugen issued misleading
and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it
planned to submit to the FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA")
application for COVAXIN, a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June
10, 2021, Ocugen announced that it "will no longer pursue an
Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to
"pursue submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although 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." Shares of
Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the same day,
based on this news.
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 17,
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]
OCUGEN INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 17 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action was
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN).
Stockholders have until the deadline below to petition the court to
serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about the case can
be found at the link provided.
Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN)
Class Period: February 2, 2021 to June 10, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 17, 2021
On May 26, 2021, Ocugen announced that it planned to submit to the
FDA an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA") application for COVAXIN,
a COVID-19 vaccine, in June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen
announced that it "will no longer pursue an Emergency Use
Authorization (EUA) for COVAXIN," instead choosing to "pursue
submission of a biologics license application (BLA) for its
COVID-19 vaccine candidate, COVAXIN." Ocugen's Chairman and CEO
stated, "Although 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."
Shares of Ocugen fell by more than 24% in intraday trading on the
same day, based on this news.
On June 10, 2021, the Company said it would no longer pursue a EUA
for Covaxin and would instead aim to file for a full U.S. approval
of the shot.
On this news, the stock price plummeted and closed on June 11, 2021
at $6.69 per share, representing a 25.17% drop from the June 10,
2021 closing price of $9.31 per share.
The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the information that Ocugen submitted to the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") was insufficient to
support an EUA; (ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and
(iii) as a result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as
defendants' statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
For more information on the Ocugen class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/OCGN
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
PHE INC: Nardo Files TCPA Suit in M.D. North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PHE, INC. The case is
styled as Raymond Nardo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PHE, INC. doing business as: ADAM AND EVE,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00539 (M.D.N.C., June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
PHE, Inc. -- https://pheinc.com/ -- is an employee owned company
based on a 10-acre site in historic Hillsborough, North
Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Matthew Wilkerson, Esq.
THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 7376
11 North Market Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Phone: (828) 258-2991
Fax: (828) 257-2767
Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
POSTAL FLEET: Fails to Pay Drivers' Proper Wages, Massie Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES MASSIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POSTAL FLEET SERVICES, INC.; THE STAGELINE
COMPANY; VILANO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, INC.; DON DORRIS; LESLIE
DORRIS; and BRENDA DORRIS, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00618 (M.D.
Fla., June 21, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Massie was employed by the Defendants as driver.
Postal Fleet Services, Inc. was founded in 2002. The Company's line
of business includes providing local trucking and storage services.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark R. Hanson, Esq.
GORDON & PARTNERS, P.A.
4114 Northlake Blvd.
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33420
Telephone: (561) 799-5070
-and-
Derrek W. Cummings, Esq.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B
Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380
Telephone: (717) 238-5707
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Review in ERISA Suit Decision Declined
--------------------------------------------------------------
jdsupra.com reports that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review
the Second Circuit's decision in Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, which held that retirees could receive money damages in the
form of recalculated benefits in a class action over how the
company's cash balance pension plan calculated lump-sum benefits.
The now 14-year-old suit challenged the Plan's method of
calculating retirement benefits for retirees who collected benefits
as a lump sum, arguing that the Plan eliminated the possibility of
those retirees receiving a "whipsaw payment" - the difference
between benefits' present value and their value at retirement age.
The retirees argued that ERISA requires whipsaw payments to
guarantee that Plan participants who take distributions in the form
of a lump sum when they terminate employment receive the actuarial
equivalent of the value of their accounts at retirement. According
to the retirees, the interest rates used by the Plan artificially
deflated the present value of certain lump sum benefits paid to
participants. For damages, the retirees sought reformation of the
plan and the recalculation of benefits in accordance with the
reformed plan.
The Plan and the other defendants originally moved for judgment on
the pleadings, arguing that ERISA did not authorize the plan
reformation or recalculation of benefits sought as relief. The
district court agreed and held that ERISA did not authorize the
recalculation of benefits. The retirees appealed, contending that
the district court erred because ERISA does in fact authorize the
relief they sought. The Second Circuit agreed with the retirees,
finding that "in the absence of controlling authority otherwise, we
are inclined to follow the Supreme Court's express preference that
violations of ERISA should be remedied." The Second Circuit
reasoned that the district court could use the equitable authority
of ERISA Sec 502(a)(3) to reform plan terms as a "preparatory step"
to enforcing the reformed plan under ERISA Sec 502(a)(1)(B).
The Plan and the other defendants petitioned the Supreme Court to
reverse the Second Circuit's decision, arguing that the Second
Circuit's decision permits a windfall payment to plan participants
that is not available under ERISA. The Plan argued that this
proposed remedy combined parts of two distinct remedial provisions
within ERISA, thus improperly fashioning a remedy that is not
permitted by either provision individually. The Plan also
highlighted that the Second Circuit's decision conflicted with the
opposite decisions from at least the Third, Fourth, and Eighth
Circuits. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, thus permitting
the Second Circuit's decision to stand.
As a result of the Supreme Court's decision not to take up the
issue at this time, at least in the Second Circuit, plaintiffs who
claim under ERISA Sec 502(a)(3) that the terms of a plan should be
reformed may also seek monetary damages under ERISA Sec
502(a)(1)(B). Plan sponsors and fiduciaries should be aware of this
as they administer their plans and consider potential resolutions
of disputes. [GN]
PURECYCLE TECH: Jakubowitz Law Reminds of July 12 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
Jakubowitz Law on June 28 disclosed that securities fraud class
action lawsuits have commenced on behalf of shareholders of the
following publicly-traded companies who purchased shares within the
class periods listed below. Shareholders interested in representing
the class of wronged shareholders have until the lead plaintiff
deadline to petition the court. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. For
more details and to speak with our firm without cost or obligation,
follow the links below.
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:PCT)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT PCT:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/purecycle-technologies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17201&from=1
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - May 5, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially 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.
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:FREQ)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT FREQ:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17201&from=1
Class Period: November 16, 2020 - March 22, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company's Phase 2a trial results failed to live up to the Company's
expectations as the results revealed no discernable difference
between FX-322 and the placebo. In spite of the disappointing
results, the Company continued to conduct the Phase 2a study while
releasing positive statements in earnings calls, press releases,
SEC filings, and pharmaceutical presentations about FX-322's
potential. These statements materially misled the market and
artificially inflated the value of Frequency's common stock.
RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX)
CONTACT JAKUBOWITZ ABOUT RLX:
https://claimyourloss.com/securities/rlx-technology-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17201&from=1
This lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased, or otherwise
acquired, RLX American Depository Shares pursuant or traceable to
the documents issued in connection with RLX's January 2021 initial
public stock offering.
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 9, 2021
The filed complaint alleges that defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company's then-existing exposure to China's ongoing campaign to
establish a national standard for e-cigarettes, which would bring
them into line with ordinary cigarette regulations, and that RLX's
reported financials were not nearly as robust as the offering
materials projected, nor were they indicative of future results. As
a result, investors purchased RLX shares at artificially inflated
prices.
Jakubowitz Law is vigorous in pursuit of justice for shareholders
who have been the victim of securities fraud. Attorney advertising.
Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
JAKUBOWITZ LAW
1140 Avenue of the Americas
9th Floor
New York, New York 10036
T: (212) 867-4490
F: (212) 537-5887 [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of July 12 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds
investors of PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT)
("PureCycle") f/k/a Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ("Roth Acquisition")
(NASDAQ: ROCH) that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has
been filed on behalf of those who purchased or acquired PureCycle
securities between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: July 12, 2021
Website:
https://www.ktmc.com/purecycle-technologies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=purecycle
Contact: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453
Adrienne Bell, Esq. (484) 270-1435
Toll free (844) 887-9500
PureCycle commercializes a purification recycling technology,
originally developed by The Procter & Gamble Company ("Procter &
Gamble"), for restoring waste polypropylene into resin with
near-virgin characteristics.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the technology PureCycle licensed from Procter &
Gamble was not proven and presented serious issues even at lab
scale; (2) the challenges posed by the availability and competition
for the raw materials necessary to commercialize the licensed
technology were significant; (3) PureCycle's financial projections
were baseless; and (4) as a result, PureCycle's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.
PureCycle investors may, no later than July 12, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free) [GN]
PURECYCLE TECHNOLOGIES: Robbins Geller Reminds of July 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP discloses that purchasers of
PureCycle Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: PCT) along with its
predecessor, Roth CH Acquisition I Co. ("ROCH") (collectively,
"PureCycle" or the "Company"), publicly traded securities during
the period between November 16, 2020 and May 5, 2021, inclusive,
and all holders of ROCH securities entitled to participate in the
March 16, 2021 shareholder vote on the merger with PureCycle (the
"Class Period") have until July 10, 2021 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the PureCycle class action lawsuit. Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed the complaint captioned Tennenbaum
v. PureCycle Technologies, Inc., No. 21-cv-00818, in the Middle
District of Florida charging PureCycle, ROCH, and certain of
PureCycle's executives with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. A similar complaint captioned Theodore v. PureCycle
Technologies, Inc., No. 21-cv-00809, is also pending in the Middle
District of Florida.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the PureCycle class
action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding
the PureCycle class action lawsuit, please visit our website by
clicking here or contact Juan Carlos Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at
800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Through November 2020, ROCH was a publicly traded
special purpose acquisition company ("SPAC"). On November 16, 2020,
PureCycle announced that PureCycle would list its common stock on
the NASDAQ through a reverse merger with the ROCH SPAC. The
PureCycle class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed
to disclose that: (i) the management team bringing PureCycle public
had previously brought six other failed business public only to
have each implode thereafter; (ii) the management team bringing
PureCycle public had characterized rank speculation as financial
projections to investors in the past; (iii) 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; (iv) PureCycle faces higher
competition for high quality feedstock than it has led investors to
believe, materially undermining the management team's financial
projections; (v) 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; (vi) in reality, PureCycle's flammable
pressurized process is not yet functional, especially at scale, and
is dangerous; (vii) PureCycle purports to be advancing to
commercial production scale despite still having operational issues
at a lab scale; and (viii) as a result, defendants' positive
statements during the Class Period about PureCycle's business
performance, financial and operational metrics, and financial
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On May 6, 2021, stock research firm Hindenburg Research published a
detailed report, supported by multiple former employees and
industry experts, detailing that the management team bringing
PureCycle public had: (i) previously brought six other businesses
public only to have each implode thereafter, "resulting in 2
bankruptcies, 3 delistings, and 1 acquisition after a ~95%
decline," with "[o]ver $760 million in public shareholder capital
[being] incinerated in the process"; (ii) "based their financial
projections" in those other failed companies on "'wild ass
guessing,' [bringing] companies public far too early, and [having]
deceived investors"; and (iii) only brought PureCycle public to
permit that same spurious management team to "collectively
position[] themselves to clear ~$90 million in cash and tradable
shares before the company generates a single dime in revenue." The
report cited industry experts who explained that despite
PureCycle's rosy projections, "PureCycle faces steep competition
for high quality feedstock, and called the company's financial
projections into question." The report included the account of a
"30-year expert on polymers, with a background in advanced plastics
recycling" who stated that PureCycle's "patent is 'indirect,'
'vague' and 'regurgitation' of prior art" and "referred to the
company's flammable pressurized process as a 'bomb' and warned
about the company foraging ahead to commercial scale despite still
having issues at a lab scale." The report concluded that "PureCycle
represents the worst qualities of the SPAC boom; 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." On this news, the
price of PureCycle's common stock declined by more than 40%,
damaging investors.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has launched a dedicated SPAC Task
Force to protect investors in blank check companies and seek
redress for corporate malfeasance. Comprised of experienced
litigators, investigators, and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task
Force is dedicated to rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf
of injured SPAC investors. The rise in blank check financing poses
unique risks to investors. Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP's SPAC
Task Force represents the vanguard of ensuring integrity, honesty,
and justice in this rapidly developing investment arena.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased PureCycle
publicly traded securities during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff in the PureCycle 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 PureCycle class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a
law firm of its choice to litigate the PureCycle class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the PureCycle class action lawsuit is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff in the PureCycle class action lawsuit, you must move the
Court no later than 60 days from May 11, 2021.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: 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. [GN]
QBE INSURANCE: Faces COVID-19 Class Suit Over Business Interruption
-------------------------------------------------------------------
jewellermagazine.com reports that a number of Australian small
business owners who have been denied insurance payouts for losses
sustained during the COVID-19 pandemic have joined class-action
lawsuits against several industry giants.
Two suits - one against Australian insurance company QBE and
another against London-based Lloyds - are being run by litigation
lawyer Andrew Grech of Gordon Legal.
Gordon Legal was founded by high-profile lawyer Peter Gordon and
specialises in class-action claims in Australia and overseas,
including the US.
The National Opal Collection (NOC) - the retail arm of Cody Opal
Australia, with premises in the Sydney and Melbourne CBDs - had
taken out a business interruption policy underwritten by AXA and
Lloyds prior to the pandemic. It has now joined the Lloyds class
action.
As previously reported by Jeweller, Damien Cody, director Cody Opal
Australia, has publicly challenged insurance companies for refusing
to offer compensation to small businesses with interruption
policies.
The NOC's business interruption policy included a clause providing
coverage in the event of an "outbreak of a notifiable human
infectious or contagious disease occurring within a 20 kilometre
radius of the [premises]".
However, a claim against the policy was rejected in May 2020, with
the insurer asserting that the business' losses - which Cody
estimates total more than $3 million - would need to have occurred
as a consequence of COVID-19 cases within 20km of the premises,
rather than "overarching factors resulting from the COVID-19
pandemic as a whole".
In January, Cody told Jeweller, "Policyholders expect that
[insurance companies] would act empathetically, ethically and
professionally in responding to claims by small businesses
suffering extreme losses as a result of COVID-19."
The ABC reports that the QBE and Lloyds class actions are the first
in Australia regarding pandemic insurance payouts.
"We're determined to take them on. Maybe the insurers were not
expecting a worldwide pandemic. But nonetheless we've been paying a
lot of money for many years taking out business interruption
insurance and the pandemic did hit," Cody told the ABC.
"It's hit my company and many others like mine very hard. We've
lost 98 per cent of our revenue. We're relying on a dribble of
revenue via internet sales.
"It's been horribly exhausting. We've had 20 staff we had to stand
down. They're people who had been with us many years. It's
certainly made me feel determined to see justice prevail," he
added.
While Grech estimates 25,000 policyholders are eligible to join the
QBE suit, approximately 100 businesses in Australia are believed to
be covered by Lloyds' specialist policy.
Insurers have argued that business interruption policies were not
intended to cover pandemics but rather localised outbreaks such as
Legionnaires' disease, and that their exclusion clauses must stand,
despite frequently referring to outdated legislation.
The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that if the exclusion
clauses are not upheld, some 250,000 policies may be eligible for
claims, which could total $10 billion - an amount for which the
industry does not carry sufficient reserves.[GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Kehoe Law Discloses Securities Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is investigating potential securities claims
on behalf of investors of Rekor Systems, Inc., f/k/a Novume
Solutions, Inc. ("Rekor" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REKR) to
determine whether Rekor engaged in securities fraud or other
unlawful business practices.
A class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of investors who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, the securities of Rekor between
April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").
According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period, the Rekor
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and compliance
policies.
According to the complaint, the Rekor Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (i) Rekor's
ALPR technology and UVED-related business is outclassed by global
competitors with an established, dominant market share; (ii) it was
unlikely that states would pass legislation authorizing deals
similar to Rekor's Oklahoma UVED partnership because of, inter
alia, state and local privacy laws and related public concerns;
(iii) Rekor's UVED partnership was not as profitable as the Rekor
Defendants had led investors to believe because of known
impediments to enrollment rates and costs associated with the
partnership; (iv) accordingly, Rekor had overstated its potential
revenues, profitability, and overall ALPR- and UVED-related
business prospects; and (v) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
INVESTORS WHO PURCHASED, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED, REKOR SECURITIES
DURING THE CLASS PERIOD AND SUFFERED LOSSES GREATER THAN $50,000
ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT MICHAEL YARNOFF, ESQ.,
MYARNOFF@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, INFO@KEHOELAWFIRM.COM, TO DISCUSS THE
SECURITIES CLASS ACTION INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIAL LEGAL CLAIMS.
Kehoe Law Firm, P.C., with offices in New York and Philadelphia, is
a multidisciplinary, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to
protecting investors from securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duties, and corporate misconduct. Combined, the partners at Kehoe
Law Firm have served as Lead Counsel or Co-Lead Counsel in cases
that have recovered more than $10 billion on behalf of
institutional and individual investors. [GN]
REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Rekor Systems,
Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. ("Rekor" or "the Company")
(NASDAQ: REKR, NVMM) for violations of SS10(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 April 12,
2019 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 30, 2021.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/rekor-systems-inc/#case-form 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. Rekor's business in automatic license
plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and uninsured vehicle
enforcement diversion ("UVED") was not competitive with competitors
that already held a dominant market share. It was unlikely that
other states would approve legislation allowing deals with the
Company similar to its partnership in Oklahoma due to privacy
concerns. The Company's UVED partnership had not attained the level
of profitability that it had touted to the market. 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 Rekor, 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.
View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210701005858/en/ [GN]
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Feds Seized CEO's Phone as Part of App Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
MacKenzie Sigalos at cnbc.com reports that Robinhood CEO Vlad
Tenev's phone was seized by federal attorneys in one of the
stock-trading app company's many legal battles, it revealed in its
IPO filing on Thursday.
In a section outlining legal risks from investigations and
subpoenas, the company noted that "a related search warrant was
executed by the USAO to obtain Mr. Tenev's cell phone." Here,
"USAO" refers to the United States Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of California, which was investigating
Robinhood's restrictions on trading during the meme stock flurry
around GameStop and other stocks early this year.
The company faces or has faced dozens of proposed class-action
lawsuits, as well as examinations or investigations by regulators,
state attorneys general, the SEC, FINRA, and the U.S. Department of
Justice. The SEC filing notes that the company has "become aware of
approximately 50 putative class actions ... relating to the Early
2021 Trading Restrictions."
Robinhood restricted the purchase of "meme stocks" such as GameStop
and AMC in January because the company did not have the capital
required by regulators to cover the requested trading volume. The
company ultimately tapped $500 million through its credit lines and
raised $1 billion overnight in order to lift the trading
restrictions.
Investors have called the entire episode unfair and unlawful in
court records previously reviewed by CNBC.
Tenev has received requests for information and requests for
testimony, and Robinhood said that the incident has resulted in
negative media attention and widespread customer dissatisfaction.
The company admitted these numerous litigation battles are
"expensive and time consuming" and could damage its reputation and
financials. But due to the preliminary nature of all of these
proceedings, the company wrote, it is "unable at this time to
estimate the likelihood or magnitude of any possible losses related
to these matters."
The company also acknowledged in its filing with the SEC that it
had received inquiries related to employee trading.
The IPO filing comes one day after news that Robinhood would have
to pay a fine of $70 million to FINRA for its systemwide outages
and misleading communication and trading practices.
Robinhood is a five-time CNBC Disruptor 50 company that topped this
year's list. [GN]
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Preemptive Motion to Beat Securities Suit Filed
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel at Reuters reports that facing a sweeping
prospective class action by millions of customers as it heads for a
multibillion-dollar IPO, the online trading platform Robinhood is
attempting a tactic I've never seen before in a securities class
action.
The company filed a preemptive motion to deny class certification
for its customers' Exchange Act claims.
Plaintiffs' lawyers only filed their amended class action complaint
against Robinhood in May, alleging that customers overpaid for
their trades to be executed. The judge overseeing the case, U.S.
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of Oakland, California,
hasn't yet ruled on the parameters of the securities class action.
In fact, as my Reuters colleague Jody Godoy reported, Robinhood
filed a motion to dismiss its customers' state and federal
securities claims alongside the preemptive opposition to class
certification.
The company's lawyers from Debevoise & Plimpton, in other words,
are trying to defeat class certification before anyone has even
asked to certify a class - and before anyone even knows whether
plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim.
Debevoise partner Maeve O'Connor didn't respond to my email query,
but Robinhood seems to be making a gamble that the potential
benefit of this preemptive motion -- effectively squelching the
class action without the time and expense of ordinary class
certification litigation -- outweighs the cost of a brief that
could be obsolete after the judge's dismissal decision.
So why doesn't every securities class action defendant try the same
strategy?
There's a two-part answer to that question, as I'll explain. The
bottom line, though, is that the Robinhood case is an unusual
securities class action, which is probably why other defendants
haven't tried similar maneuvers. (I checked with Kevin LaCroix of
the D&O Diary, who tracks every securities class action in federal
court, and he said he'd never before heard of a defendant bringing
a preemptive motion to deny class certification.)
"It's a perfect storm of unique facts," said shareholder lawyer
Joel Fleming of Block & Leviton. "I don't see this as the start of
a new wave."
The plaintiffs' firms in the Robinhood case, Liddle & Dubin, Ahdoot
& Wolfson and Bursor & Fisher, did not respond to an email query on
the company's preemptive class opposition motion.
The filing itself acknowledges that it's rare for a court to deny
class certification at the beginning of a case. But the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals explicitly held in 2009's Vinole v.
Countrywide that defendants can move preemptively to avert class
certification. Since the Vinole decision, at least two trial judges
in the 9th Circuit have granted preemptive motions to deny class
certification in consumer cases, a 2014 ruling for Philips Oral
Healthcare and a 2017 decision for Johnson & Johnson. Robinhood's
motion argued that under the 9th Circuit's Vinole precedent, its
case is an exception to the general rule that class certification
determinations require discovery.
That 9th Circuit precedent is one piece of the explanation for
Robinhood's preemptive motion. But, of course, lots of securities
class actions are filed in the 9th Circuit. It's the second piece -
the nature of this class action - that enabled Robinhood to attempt
this novel strategy.
Crucially, the plaintiffs suing Robinhood are not investors
claiming that they lost money in a stock drop. They are Robinhood
customers who allege that the company breached its duty under
federal securities law to execute customers' trades on the best
terms reasonably possible.
Their theory is that the company's business model during the
2016-2020 class period depended on revenue from principal trading
firms that paid for the right to execute Robinhood customers'
trades. In turn, those firms allegedly executed trades by Robinhood
customers on suboptimal terms that allowed the intermediaries to
fund their payments to Robinhood. Robinhood billed itself as a
no-commission platform, but these "inferior execution prices,"
according to the class complaint, amounted to "backdoor commission
fees." Customers are seeking damages for that alleged overpayment
to execute their trades. (Robinhood resolved "best execution" cases
by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in 2019 and the
Securitiesand Exchange Commission in 2020.)
What's important for the purposes of the early class opposition
motion is that plaintiffs can't use efficient market theory to
establish classwide reliance. The U.S. Supreme Court, as you know,
has relieved shareholders in most securities class actions of the
burden of proving that they relied on a company's
misrepresentations, ruling that when shares trade in an efficient
market, the market price presumptively reflects any distortion
attributable to corporate fraud.
There's no share price at issue in the Robinhood case, though, as
the company explained in its class opposition motion. "A breach of
the duty of best execution does not affect the market price of any
securities," the motion said. "Instead, each class member must show
that she directly relied on the alleged misrepresentations." The
class can't be certified, Robinhood said, if every class member
must prove reliance and damages individually.
That's why, according to Robinhood, no securities class has ever
been certified in a case alleging a breach of the duty of best
execution. Just in April, the brief noted, the 8th Circuit rejected
class certification in a similar case against TD Ameritrade. No
amount of discovery, Robinhood argued, can solve the essential
class certification obstacle: Plaintiffs can't show classwide
reliance or offer a damages model that applies to all of the
millions of trades at issue in the case.
Like I said, these circumstances of the Robinhood case are so
unusual that it's no wonder other securities class action
defendants haven't tried the preemptive class opposition gambit.
But this is a company juggling a lot of legal problems, as you can
see from the record-breaking $70 million FINRA penalty it agreed to
pay and from the extensive disclosures in the registration
statement it filed in anticipation of its IPO. Robinhood seems to
be hoping that its preemptive motion will provide a quick cure for
one of its headaches. [GN]
ROCKET COMPANIES: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 30 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that it filed a class
action seeking to represent purchasers of Rocket Companies, Inc.
(NYSE: RKT) Class A common stock during the period between February
25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit was filed in
the Eastern District of Michigan and is captioned Qaiyum v. Rocket
Companies, Inc., No. 21-cv-11528. The Rocket Companies class action
lawsuit charges Rocket Companies and certain of its executives with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Rocket Companies class action lawsuit or have
questions concerning your rights regarding the Rocket Companies
class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or
contact Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058 or via e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. You can view a
copy of the complaint as filed at
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-rocket-companies-inc-class-action-lawsuit.html.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Rocket Companies class action lawsuit alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and
misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket
Companies' gain on sale margins were contracting at the highest
rate in two years as a result of increased competition among
mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift toward the lower margin
Partner Network operating segment and compression in the price
spread between the primary and secondary mortgage markets; (ii)
Rocket Companies was engaged in a price war and battle for market
share with its primary competitors in the wholesale market, which
was further compressing margins in Rocket Companies' Partner
Network operating segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified
above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket Companies' gain on
sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in
the first six months of 2021; (iv) as a result, the favorable
market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed
Rocket Companies to achieve historically high gain on sale margins
had vanished as Rocket Companies' gain on sale margins had returned
to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (v) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket Companies'
company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below
pre-pandemic averages; and (vi) consequently, defendants' positive
statements about Rocket Companies' business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
On May 5, 2021, Rocket Companies reported that it was on track to
achieve closed loan volume within a range of only $82.5 billion and
$87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a range of only 2.65%
to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the mid-point, this
gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis point decline
year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which
represented Rocket Companies' lowest quarterly gain on sale margin
in two years. The stunning collapse in Rocket Companies' gain on
sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions
purportedly being experienced by Rocket Companies during the Class
Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain
the results, Rocket Companies' Chief Financial Officer and
Treasurer, defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp
decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three
factors: (i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to
Rocket Companies' lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a
compression in price spreads between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets. Defendant Booth also admitted that certain of
these trends began "at the end of Q1." On this news, the price of
Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close
at $19.01 per share. As the market continued to digest the news in
the days that followed, the price of Rocket Companies Class A
common stock continued to decline, falling to a low of just $16.48
per share by May 11, 2021.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Rocket
Companies common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in the Rocket Companies 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 Rocket
Companies class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the Rocket Companies class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the Rocket Companies class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you wish to serve as
lead plaintiff in the Rocket Companies class action lawsuit, you
must move the Court no later than August 30, 2021.
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.
About Robbins Geller
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.[GN]
ROSS DRESS FOR LESS: Castro Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ross Dress for Less,
Inc. The case is styled as Magda Castro, on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., Case No.
BCV-21-101490 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., June 30, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Ross Stores, Inc., operating under the brand name Ross Dress for
Less, is an American chain of discount department stores
headquartered in Dublin, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
MOSS BOLLINGER, LLP
15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5824
Phone: (310) 982-2984
Fax: (818) 963-5954
Email: jeremy@mossbollinger.com
SCOTT KUDRICK: Faces Class Action STR Suit Over Zoning Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
conwaydailysun.com reports that a recent comment by local
short-term rental operator Scott Kudrick that was published in The
Conway Daily Sun prompted selectmen to explain why the town, out of
all the property owners, chose to make him the face of the class
action the town has taken to court.
Kudrick, a Conway resident who owns numerous STRs properties, is
the defendant named in the town's request to have the Carroll
County Superior Court make a declaratory judgment to determine
whether the town's current zoning law allows STRs.
"The selectmen were responding to a quote by Mr. Kudrick in one of
the CDS stories regarding he not being sure why we picked him,"
Holmes said.
The selectmen's statement, released by Holmes, said: "The board has
received inquiries regarding the designation of Scott Kudrick as
representative of the defendant class in the declaratory judgment
proceeding. As explained in the town's petition, Mr. Kudrick owns
or operates a number of STR buildings in both commercial and
residential districts. He was deemed to be an appropriate
representative of the class, and the town was confident that he
would oppose the town's effort in court."
And as predicted, that is what Kubrick is doing.
An association of local short-term rental owners recently announced
that a team of lawyers will defend them against a suit brought by
the town of Conway. Mt. Washington Valley Association for
Responsible Vacation Rentals has retained Mark H. Puffer of Preti
Flaherty Law of Concord and Matthew R. Johnson of Devine Millimet
Law of Manchester.
And, according to the association, its attorneys, described as
experts in zoning, real estate and litigation, will also represent
Kudrick.
Apparently, by going after a major player, selectmen believe they
will avoid battling numerous individual property owners.
"As explained in the petition, individual enforcement actions would
be unnecessarily cumbersome and expensive - both for the town and
the judiciary," said the town's recent statement.
"The defendant class action will provide a resolution that is
binding on all, and will the Board believes, confirm that STRs are
prohibited in the Town of Conway's residential districts."
For its part, the STR association sums up Conway's petition thusly:
"The Town of Conway is seeking a declaratory judgment to determine
whether current zoning laws permit short-term rentals, which has
been a long-standing tradition amongst ski families in the idyllic
town."
Head of the association, David Cavanaugh, said that 47 percent of
homeowners don't have their primary residence in Conway and can't
vote in municipal elections.
"These part-time residents are 'tired of being ignored' and the
association wants to find 'common ground' with the town," he said.
In April, Conway voters turned down a change to the zoning
ordinance, supported by all five selectmen, to allow STRs in
residential zones provided they complied with an arduous permitting
process.
Selectmen followed up the vote with a letter to STR owners saying
short-term renting was not allowed, but the letter provided no
details about when they would begin enforcement or what would
happen if the owners continued to rent out their properties.
After the letter went out, many locals demanded they immediately
shut down STRs. Others, predominately STR owners or users, asked
for a grace period from enforcement. While not stated publicly, the
town's decision to go to court and wait for a decision amounts to
just that. A decision from the court is not expected for months.
[GN]
SHREVEPORT, LA: Interest Added to Water, Sewer Usage Overcharges
----------------------------------------------------------------
KTBS reports that interest has been added to the amount the City of
Shreveport owes to water-and-sewer customers for a decade of
overcharges, following a Caddo District judge's ruling on June 28.
The city intends to appeal and has not paid the damages, so the
June 28 ruling adding interest raises the amount of the judgment
from about $9.6 million to approximately $11.3 million.
Caddo District Judge Mike Pitman initially found the city liable
for the overcharges in October 2019. This past March, he set the
amount to be refunded -- and interest has been accruing at a rate
of approximately $831 a day.
The city has already issued refunds to customers totaling almost $6
million that represented one part of the lawsuit that disclosed the
city's practice of rounding up water usage when determining the
amount of monthly bills during the winter months.
Pitman's ruling this past March ordering $9.6 million in refunds
for too many days of overcharges was the second monetary judgment
assessed to the city in connection with a water-billing class
action lawsuit.
"During these past four and a half years (since the suit was
filed), the most common question we get is, 'When will we get
repaid for these overcharges?'" said Anne Wilkes, one of the
attorneys for the plaintiffs. "We can only respond, 'We don't
know." These questions are best directed to Mayor Perkins and your
City Council."
A spokeswoman for the mayor said the city would have no comment
because of the pending litigation. [GN]
STEAK N SHAKE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramos Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
BETSY RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STEAK N SHAKE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:21-cv-01212 (N.D. Ohio, June 21, 2021) seeks to recover from the
Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Ramos was employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff.
Steak n Shake Inc. owns, operates, and franchises a chain of
restaurants. The Company offers meals, burgers, milkshakes,
sandwiches, salads, desserts, and drinks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
The Heritage Building, Suite 250
34555 Chagrin Boulevard
Moreland Hills, OH 44022
Telephone: (216) 696-5000
Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
lori@lazzarolawfirm.com
-and-
Don J. Foty, Esq.
HODGES & FOTY, L.L.P.
Texas State Bar No. 24050022
4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
E-mail: dfoty@hftrialfirm.com
STEMILT AG: Hearing on Garcia Bid to Certify Class Stricken
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia et al v. Stemilt Ag
Services LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00254 (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
Salvador Mendoza, Jr. entered an order that the hearing on
Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class is stricken.
The Court will reset the hearing at a later time, to a date after
the resolution of the pending motions, says Judge Mendoza.
The nature of suit states Labor -- Other Labor Litigation.
Stemilt AG was founded in 2011. The company's line of business
includes providing farm management services.[CC]
STG LOGISTICS: Zacarias Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Forklift Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS ZACARIAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. STG LOGISTICS, INC. a/k/a St. George
Logistics; ZJR STAFFING, LLC a/k/a ZJR STAFFING S-CORPORATION; JOSE
LUIS HUGO; and ZULMA JANET ROSADO, Defendants, Case No.
2:21-cv-13061 (D.N.J., June 28, 2021) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New Jersey Wage and Hour Law by failing to compensate the Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated shipping container unloaders
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a forklift driver
from in or about 2017 to February 16, 2021.
STG Logistics, Inc., also known as St. George Logistics, is a
logistics company with a corporate office in North Bergen, New
Jersey.
ZJR Staffing, LLC, also known as ZJR Staffing S-Corporation, is an
employment agency in Elizabeth, New Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell Schley, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
197 Route 18, Suite 3000
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
Telephone: (732) 325-0318
E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com
SWEET EARTH: Hurtado Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled GABRIELA SOTO HURTADO, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SWEET EARTH, INC. and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 21CV001725, was removed from the
Superior Court of California for the County of Monterey to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on June 25,
2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-04894-VKD to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, failure to
provide meal breaks, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks,
non-compliant wage statements and failure to maintain payroll
records, failure to timely pay wages during employment,
unreimbursed business expenses, and unlawful and unfair business
practices.
Sweet Earth, Inc. is a food company based in Moss Landing,
California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Tracey A. Kennedy, Esq.
Brett D. Young, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1422
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com
byoung@sheppardmullin.com
- and –
Morgan P. Forsey, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (415) 434-9100
Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
E-mail: mforsey@sheppardmullin.com
TARENA INT'L: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 23 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Tarena International, Inc.
("Tarena" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU) and certain of its
directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Tarena securities between August 16, 2016 and November 1,
2019 (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join
this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/tedu.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) certain employees were interfering with external
audits of Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2)
Tarena suffered from revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena
engaged in business transactions with organizations owned, invested
in or controlled by Tarena employees or their family members, which
in some instances were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a
result of the foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014
through the end of Class Period were not accurate; 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tedu or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Tarena
you have until August 23, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.[GN]
TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
August 23, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased Tarena
International, Inc. ("Tarena" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU)
securities between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Investors suffering losses on their Tarena investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.
On April 30, 2019, Tarena revealed that it could not timely file
its fiscal 2018 annual report due to an ongoing "review of certain
issues identified during the course of the audit of the
registrant's financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2018, including issues related to the registrant's revenue
recognition."
On this news, Tarena's American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") price
fell 1.2%, to close at $5.02 per ADS on May 1, 2019, thereby
damaging investors.
On May 17, 2019, the Company disclosed that it was notified Tarena
was not in compliance with NASDAQ listing rules due to the failure
to timely file its 2018 annual report.
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.8%, to close at $3.73 per ADS on
May 20, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
On July 24, 2019, Tarena disclosed that it expected that fiscal
2017 and prior periods "may need to be restated and should not be
relied upon, pending the completion of the Independent Audit
Committee Review."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs fell 4.7%, to close at $1.63 per ADS on
July 25, 2019, thereby damaging investors.
Finally, on November 1, 2019, Tarena announced the results of its
investigation, including a list of revenue inaccuracies for fiscal
years 2014 through 2018, expense inaccuracies and irregularities,
and undisclosed related party transactions. Tarena further
disclosed that it "anticipates that the total amount of revenue
misstatement between fiscal years 2014 through 2018 to be less than
RMB900 million, representing approximately 11.5% of the total
revenue previously reported by the Company for such period."
On this news, Tarena's ADSs dropped 9.4%, to open on November 4,
2019, the next trading day, at $0.76, thereby damaging investors
further.
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) certain
employees were interfering with external audits of Tarena's
financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena suffered from
revenue and expense inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged in business
transactions with organizations owned, invested in or controlled by
Tarena employees or their family members, which in some instances
were not properly disclosed by Tarena; (4) as a result of the
foregoing, Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end
of Class Period were not accurate; 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 Tarena securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 23, 2021
to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet
certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class action you
need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of
your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or
if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070
Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone
at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of Aug. 23 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that a class action was
commenced on behalf of stockholders of Tarena International, Inc.
(NASDAQ: TEDU). Stockholders have until the deadline below to
petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional
information about the case can be found at the link provided.
Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEDU)
Class Period: August 16, 2016 to November 1, 2019
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 23, 2021
On April 30, 2019, the Company filed a Form NT 20-F Notification of
inability to timely file a Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2018 with the SEC. The Company stated the delay in
filing the Form 20-F was due, in part, to, "the independent audit
committee of the registrant's board of directors [. . .] conducting
a review of certain issues identified during the course of the
audit of the registrant's financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2018, including issues related to the registrant's
revenue recognition."
On this news, the price of Tarena ADSs fell 1% to close at $5.02
per ADS on May 1, 2019, damaging investors.
Then on November 1, 2019, Tarena announced the results of its
independent investigation. Tarena revealed issues surrounding
revenue and expense inaccuracies, conflicts of interest and related
party transactions, and interference with the external audit
processes which meant that financial statements from 2014 through
2018 could not be relied upon and would have to be restated.
On this news, the price of Tarena ADSs dropped 9% to open on
November 4, 2019, the next trading day, at $0.76, further damaging
investors.
It is alleged in this complaint, Tarena throughout the Class Period
made misleading and/or false statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) certain employees had interfered with external audits of
Tarena's financial statements for certain periods; (2) Tarena
suffered from expense and revenue inaccuracies; (3) Tarena engaged
in business transactions with organizations that were owned,
invested in or controlled by employees of Tarena or their family
members, in some instances were not properly disclosed by Tarena;
(4) Tarena's financial statements from 2014 through the end of
Class Period were not accurate, as a result of the foregoing; and
(5) Tarena's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially misleading and false and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, as a result. The lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages when the true details
entered the market.
For more information on the Tarena class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/TEDU
About Bragar Eagel
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm
with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in commercial,
securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and
federal courts across the country. For more information about the
firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact Information:
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.
Brandon Walker, Esq.
Melissa Fortunato, Esq.
Marion Passmore, Esq.
(212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com [GN]
TC TRANSCONTINENTAL: Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VICTOR MORENO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TC TRANSCONTINENTAL U.S.A. INC.;
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. RG21099845, was removed from the Superior Court of
California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California on June 25, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-04902 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid
rest period premiums, unpaid minimum wages, final wages not timely
paid, non-compliant wage statements, unreimbursed business
expenses, and unfair business practices.
TC Transcontinental U.S.A. Inc. is a packaging, commercial printing
and specialty media company, with its principal place of business
located in Montreal, Canada.
Hearst Communications, Inc. is an American multinational mass media
company based in New York, New York. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel Chammas, Esq.
Jennifer S. McGeorge, Esq.
Jamin Xu, Esq.
FORD & HARRISON LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 237-2400
Facsimile: (213) 237-2401
E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com
jmcgeorge@fordharrison.com
jxu@fordharrison.com
TODD BREMER: Michaud Files FDCPA Suit in D. North Dakota
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed Todd, Bremer & Lawson, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Amanda Michaud, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Todd, Bremer & Lawson,
Inc., John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00143-DLH-CRH (D.N.D., June
30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Todd, Bremer & Lawson Inc. -- https://www.tbandl.com/ -- has
provided a distinctive approach to educational debt recovery since
1974.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
285 Passaic Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
TOTAL LIFE: Must Face False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff Marilyn Williams, on behalf of a
proposed Class of similarly situated Minnesota consumers, defeated
a motion to dismiss her case alleging false advertising of the THC
content of a weight loss tea sold by Defendant Total Life Changes,
LLC. The opinion, authored by Judge Michael Davis of the US
District Court for the District of Minnesota, upholds all of the
claims alleged in Ms. Williams' Amended Complaint, including
violations of several Minnesota consumer protection statutes via
Minnesota's Private Attorney General statute as well as common law
claims.
TLC sells vitamins, weight loss supplements, teas, essential oils,
and skin care products, some of which contain derivatives of
cannabis, such as hemp. Ms. Williams alleged that TLC marketed its
Raspberry Lemonade Tea as containing "0.0% THC," which is claimed
was "laboratory certified" and "100% authentic guaranteed." Despite
this promise, Plaintiff says she tested positive for THC after
consuming the Tea, causing her to lose her job and forcing her to
relocate outside of Minnesota. The Court held that Ms. Williams'
relocation after the events giving rise to her complaint did not
affect her claims under the Private Attorney General statute or for
injunctive relief on a motion to dismiss.
Chloe Raimey, one of the attorneys representing the consumers,
stated, "We're pleased with the Court's decision to allow this
important case to proceed to discovery. TLC's false advertising is
causing consumers to lose their livelihoods during an already
challenging time, and we hope to obtain justice for Minnesota
consumers and prevent others from suffering the harm that Ms.
Williams has experienced."
Plaintiff is represented by Matthew Morgan, Anna Prakash, and Chloe
Raimey of Nichols Kaster, PLLP; David Fish of The Fish Law Firm,
PC; and Aaron Rapier of Rapier Law Firm. The case is titled,
Williams v. Total Life Changes, LLC, Case No. 0:20-cv-02463-MJD-HB
(District of Minnesota).
Additional information about the case against TLC can be found at
www.nka.com, by calling Nichols Kaster, PLLP toll free at (877)
448-0492, or by emailing the paralegal on the case, Alexandra
Smith, at asmith@nka.com.
Nichols Kaster, with more than thirty lawyers in offices in
Minneapolis and San Francisco, represents employees and consumers
in individual, class, and collective action lawsuits throughout the
country. The firm has recently received a First Tier ranking on the
2021 Best Law Firms List in Minneapolis for Litigation-Labor and
Employment by U.S. News-Best Lawyers® "Best Law Firms." [GN]
TRADE DESK: Chair Filed Unsworn Affidavit for Pension Fund Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the putative class action lawsuit styled as CITY PENSION FUND
FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. THE TRADE
DESK, INC., LISE J. BUYER, KATHRYN E. FALBERG, THOMAS FALK, JEFF
GREEN, ERIC B. PALEY, DAVID R. PICKLES, BLAKE GRAYSON, GOKUL
RAJARAM, BRIAN J. STEMPECK, and DAVID B. WELLS, Case No. 2021-0560,
David Frazier filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware his unsworn affidavit and verification of this class
action complaint.
David Frazier is the chair of the City Pension Fund for
Firefighters and Police Officers in the City of Miami Beach.
City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the City
of Miami Beach is a single employer defined benefit pension plan
established by the City of Miami Beach, Florida.
The Trade Desk, Inc. is a software company headquartered in
California. [BN]
TRANSUNION LLC: Maurice Wutscher Attorneys Discuss SCOTUS Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Yarborough, Esq., of Maurice Wutscher LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that on June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the
United States held that a plaintiff must suffer a concrete injury
resulting from a defendant's statutory violation to have Article
III standing to pursue damages from that defendant in federal
court. The Court also held that plaintiffs in a class action must
prove that every class member has standing for each claim asserted
and for each form of relief sought.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by
Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and
Barrett. Justice Thomas, often considered the Court's most
conservative member, wrote a dissent joined by Justices Breyer,
Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Kagan also wrote a separate dissent
that was joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor.
The Court's decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez is available at:
Link to Opinion.
The road to this momentous decision began at a car dealership where
the plaintiff sought to finance the purchase of a vehicle. When
running a credit check, the dealership received a TransUnion credit
report indicating that the plaintiff's name matched a name on a
list of "specially designated nationals" maintained by the United
States Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
The OFAC list contains the names of terrorists, drug traffickers,
and other serious criminals deemed to be a threat to national
security. After seeing his credit report, the dealership refused to
sell a car to the plaintiff.
The following day, the plaintiff called TransUnion to request a
copy of his credit file pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)(1).
TransUnion fulfilled the request and included a copy of the CFPB's
summary of rights as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(c)(2). The
documents sent to the plaintiff omitted the OFAC alert, so the
following day TransUnion sent the plaintiff a second letter
explaining that his name potentially matched a name on the OFAC
list. However, the second letter did not include the CFPB's summary
of rights.
The plaintiff subsequently filed suit against TransUnion, asserting
three claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA): (1) that
in utilizing the OFAC list, TransUnion failed to follow reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy of information in violation of 15
U.S.C. § 1681e(b); (2) that by omitting the OFAC information from
the credit file TransUnion initially mailed to plaintiff in
response to his request, TransUnion failed to provide plaintiff
with all information in his credit file in violation of §
1681g(a)(1); and (3) that by failing to include another copy of the
summary of rights in the second mailing to plaintiff, TransUnion
violated § 1681(c)(2). The plaintiff also asserted those three
claims on behalf of a class of all people in the United States to
whom TransUnion mailed a follow-up OFAC notice without a summary of
rights — i.e., those who received a mailing like the second
mailing received by the plaintiff. There were 8,185 people in the
class, but only 1,853 of them had their credit reports sent to
creditors during the relevant time period.
The plaintiff prevailed on all three claims at trial and the jury
awarded over $60 million ($984.22 in statutory damages and
$6,353.08 in punitive damages for each member of the class). On
appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that all members of the class had
Article III standing, but the circuit court reduced the punitive
damages award to just under $4,000 per class member, which brought
the overall award to roughly $40 million. The Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
SCOTUS DECISION
The Supreme Court's decision focused on whether each member of the
class suffered a "concrete" injury and further developed its
analysis of concreteness provided five years earlier in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016). In particular, the Court
elaborated on the limits of Congress's power to create statutory
injuries that can form the basis of a lawsuit in federal court.
After all, as the Court held in Spokeo, "Article III requires a
concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation." And
this means that "[o]nly those plaintiffs who have been concretely
harmed by a defendant's statutory violation may sue that private
defendant over that violation in federal court."
In further describing those Congressional limits, the Court cited
recent FDCPA decisions from the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits. The
Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit (Trichell v. Midland Credit
Mgmt., Inc., 964 F.3d 990, 999, n. 2 (11th Cir. 2020)) that
Congress's "say so" does not make an injury concrete. The Court
also quoted the Seventh Circuit decision written by then-Judge (now
Justice) Barrett in Casillas v. Madison Avenue Assocs., Inc., 926
F. 3d 329, 332 (7th 2019) to explain that "'Article III grants
federal courts the power to redress harms that defendants cause
plaintiffs, not a freewheeling power to hold defendants accountable
for legal infractions.'"
In determining whether the class members had standing, the Court
examined whether the alleged injury bore a "close relationship to a
harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in
American courts," here the harm to one's reputation resulting from
defamation.
Starting with the 1,853 class members whose credit reports were
disseminated to creditors, the Court noted that American law has
long recognized that a person is injured when a defamatory
statement is published to a third party. Therefore, class members
whose credit reports were published to third parties were injured
because those reports flagged them as potential terrorists.
Although the credit reports merely alerted users to a potential
match on the OFAC list and did not falsely assert that any class
member was a terrorist, the Court held that the harm associated
with being described as a potential terrorist bears a sufficiently
close relationship to being called a terrorist. Therefore, the
Court affirmed the finding of standing on the § 1681e(b) claim for
the plaintiff and the 1,853 members of the class whose credit
reports were disseminated by TransUnion.
The Court then turned to the 6,332 class members whose credit
reports were not disseminated and questioned whether they suffered
a concrete injury from the mere existence of an inaccurate credit
file that was never published to a third party. The Court
determined that publication is necessary for a concrete injury,
comparing an unpublished credit report with a defamatory letter
that is hidden in a desk drawer instead of mailed.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that all class
members had standing because they were subjected to a material risk
of future harm based on the potential later release of their credit
reports. The Court's prior decision in Spokeo noted that a risk of
future harm can sometimes satisfy the concreteness requirement, so
long as the risk is sufficiently imminent and substantial.
In Ramirez, the Court took the opportunity to explain that a
plaintiff exposed to a risk of future harm may sometimes have
standing to pursue injunctive relief to prevent that harm from
occurring, but a mere exposure to risk is insufficient to confer
standing to seek retrospective damages. Because their credit
reports were never published, the Court reversed the finding of
standing for the other 6,332 class members on the § 1681e(b)
claim.
The Court then addressed whether the class members had standing to
pursue what it called the "disclosure claim" (based on the omission
of OFAC information from the credit file sent to class members
pursuant to Sec. 1681g(a)) and the "summary-of-rights claim" (based
on the failure to send another summary of rights with the follow-up
mailing that contained the OFAC information). The plaintiff argued
that all class members suffered a concrete injury because they were
deprived of their right to receive information in the format
required by the FCRA, but the Court rejected this argument because
there was no evidence that any class member suffered a harm that
bore a close relationship with a harm traditionally recognized as
providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts. Indeed, there
was no evidence that anyone other than the plaintiff himself even
opened the two mailings, much less that anyone acted or failed to
act based on the information contained in those mailings.
Although Congress can elevate to legally cognizable the harm
associated with the denial of information subject to public
disclosure, the Court again cited Casillas and Trichell in pointing
out that the FCRA, like the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, is
not a public-disclosure law. The Court then turned to Trichell once
more in noting the failure to identify any "downstream
consequences" resulting from the defective disclosures: "An
'asserted informational injury that causes no adverse effects
cannot satisfy Article III.'" Therefore, the Court held that none
of the class members had standing to pursue damages for the
"disclosure claim" or the "summary-of-rights claim."
IMPACT ON CONSUMER LITIGATION
In the wake of Spokeo, the federal circuit and district courts were
divided on whether a statutory violation, on its own, was
sufficient to confer standing. For example, the Sixth Circuit in
Macy v. GC Services Ltd. Partnership, 897 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2018),
held that an alleged violation of a disclosure provision of the
FDCPA was itself enough to confer standing, a holding that was
expressly rejected by the Seventh Circuit in Casillas. The Supreme
Court's ruling in Ramirez appears to resolve this split and
essentially makes Casillas and Trichell the law of the land. Going
forward, plaintiffs who merely allege a technical violation of a
consumer-protection statute, with no associated concrete injury,
lack standing to pursue that claim in federal court. Also, even if
the plaintiff can prove that he suffered a concrete injury as the
result of a statutory violation, he will be unable to recover on
behalf of a class unless he can also prove that every class member
suffered a concrete injury as well. In other words, gone are the
days in which a plaintiff could pursue class recovery based solely
on the fact that every member of the class received the same
allegedly defective letter.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas notes that the Ramirez decision
gives defendants like TransUnion more than they bargained for
because consumers are often able to pursue violations of federal
statutes in state court and defendants will be unable to remove
those cases to federal court when the plaintiff lacks Article III
standing. For cases now pending in federal court that are subject
to dismissal due to lack of standing, defendants should evaluate
whether those cases can be filed again in state court. Some states
have savings statutes that extend the time to file if the
limitations period expired while the case was pending in federal
court. Other states lack savings statutes or have savings statutes
that apply only in limited situations. Also, because many cases
will undoubtedly be filed in state court going forward, defendants
should familiarize themselves with the standing doctrines applied
in various state courts.
POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HUNSTEIN
For readers who have been following the Hunstein case in the
Eleventh Circuit, the plaintiff in Ramirez also argued that
TransUnion "published" the credit reports internally to its own
employees and externally to letter vendors who mailed those reports
to the class members in response to their requests. The Court
disposed of this argument with a footnote explaining that the
argument was forfeited because it was asserted for the first time
on appeal. However, the Court also called the argument "unavailing"
because American courts have not traditionally recognized
intra-company disclosures or disclosures to print vendors as
actionable publications supporting a defamation claim. The appellee
in Hunstein has already filed a Rule 28(j) letter citing Ramirez as
supplemental authority. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Class Action Cap Could Hurt NT Stolen Wages Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Knowles at nit.com.au reports that the landmark Northern
Territory stolen wages class action against the Federal Government
could be in jeopardy due to potential reforms to the class action
process.
Announcing the class action on June 8, Melbourne law firm Shine
Lawyers said they were advocating on behalf of Aboriginal workers
in the Northern Territory seeking compensation for lost of income
between 1933 and 1978.
"Under these discriminatory laws, the Commonwealth got away with
robbing Indigenous Australians of their hard-earned wages, meaning
those who were already separated from their families entered a
vicious cycle of poverty that was preventable," said Shine Lawyers'
Head of Class Actions, Jan Saddler.
Thomas Conway was 11-years-old when he was taken from his family
and began work on Alexandria Station.
"I worked on water bores or in the timber yard or stock yard. You
got up at six o'clock in the morning and knock-off was at six
o'clock at night," he said.
"There was no money. Just working for the white man. When Gough
Whitlam gave us land rights, we walked free, back to Country, and
never went back."
Director of Litigation Lending Services (LLS), who is funding the
class action, Nyunggai Warren Mundine AO said that the class action
is a step towards shining a light on a forgotten history.
"We want to shine a big spotlight on this, telling people what
happened. We're not talking about lazy people, these are people who
worked on cattle stations, they worked on the railway and the
roads," he said.
Mundine's own father worked for the Department of Main Roads in New
South Wales. In the 1940s he was given the 'Aborigines Allowance' -
a small fraction of the income he was entitled to.
"It meant that he was in the same boat as others who had their
wages stolen. He was very fortunate, he was able to find a union
organiser that got him a full pay, he was a rarity," Mundine said.
Mundine believes the class action is a step towards justice.
"These people helped build this country through their work. They
went out there every day, built the cattle stations, the roads, the
railway, fruit picking - everything," he said.
"These are the infrastructures that helped build the Australian
economy . . . . Money was taken from them and funded to build those
same roads, those same railways, schools and everything else in
this country."
The NT stolen wages class action follows the 2019 stolen wages
class action in Queensland, in which more than 10,800 Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people received $190 million of
entitlements for stolen wages between 1939 and 1972.
The NT stolen wages class action will be against the Federal
Government.
"We're bringing this against the then Minister for Native Affairs
who originally did this, but of course the inheritor of that title
now is Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt - it is
ironic," he said.
Currently, the Federal Government is negotiating reforms to the
class action process and the regulation of funder and plaintiff
firms.
These negotiations are the product of a Parliamentary Joint
Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report from a
December 2020 inquiry.
The inquiry recommended 70 per cent of gross proceeds could be a
minimum return for class action members, therefore capping fees for
litigation funder and lawyers.
Federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, in a joint statement with the
Attorney-General Michaelia Cash, said the measure is of "particular
importance to ensure successful applicants are adequately
compensated in their cases as well as preventing litigation funders
and law firms from taking disproportionate fees in the process".
Mundine however notes the impact these changes could have on class
actions like the NT stolen wages case.
"Caps sound like a great idea . . . . but the problem we are
looking at is if our case goes to court for years, there are
excessive legal fees involved and a lot of research money," he
said.
"You will not, unfortunately because of the delay, see that return
back the clients. This gives the advantage to the defendants - if
they delay it or put roadblocks in the way, more money is spent on
the lawyers and less is returned to the client."
Mundine is in conversation with the Attorney-General and Treasurer
to ensure Aboriginal workers seeking compensation for stolen wages
"do not become collateral damage because they're trying to get
justice".
"These people worked, and they worked hard. It's very simple, give
them their money back."
NIT contacted the Attorney-General's Department for comment but did
not receive a response by time of publication.[GN]
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Settlement Class Wins Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SWEDA, et al., v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04329-GEKP
(E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Certification of Settlement Class
and for Appointment of Class Counsel and Plaintiffs' Unopposed
Motions for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
The Court certifies the following class for settlement purposes
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1):
"All persons who participated in the Plans at any time during
the Class Period, including any Beneficiary of a deceased person
who participated in one or more of the Plans at any time during
the Class Period, and any Alternate Payee of a person subject to
a Qualified Domestic Relations Order who participated in one or
more of the Plans at any time during the Class Period."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are each of the individual
members of the Investment Committee during the Class Period. The
Class Period is August 10, 2010 through January 14, 2021.
The Court also appoints the Class Representatives to represent the
Settlement Class, and Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, as Class
Counsel.
A copy of the Court's order dated June 29, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/367QPG8 at no extra charge.[CC]
VERMONT AGENCY: Gray-Rand Suit Removed to D. Vermont
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Tina Gray-Rand, Michael Hammond, Taylor Cook,
and others similarly situated v. Vermont Agency of Human Services;
Michael Smith, Secretary of the Agency of Human Services; Sean
Brown, Commissioner of the Department for Children and Families;
Case No. 21-cv-01703 was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civ. Div., to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on June 30, 2021.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00178-cr to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for Civil Rights
Act.
The Vermont Agency of Human Services --
https://humanservices.vermont.gov/ -- is a Vermont executive
agency. Its purpose is to develop and execute policy on human
services for the U.S. state of Vermont.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jessica M. Radbord, Esq.
Laura A. Gans, Esq.
Michael K. Benvenuto, Esq.
VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC.
264 North Winooski Avenue
Burlington, VT 05401
Phone: (802) 863-5620
Fax: (802) 863-7152
Email: mbenvenuto@vtlegalaid.org
The Defendant is represented by:
Bessie Weiss, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Waterbury, VT 05671-2080
Phone: (802) 881-5939
Email: bessie.weiss@vermont.gov
- and -
Rachel E. Smith, Esq.
VERMONT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFCICE
109 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05609-1001
Phone: (802) 828-3178
Email: rachel.e.smith@vermont.gov
VIKING CLIENT: Comer Files FDCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Viking Client
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Anjanette Comer, Christopher
D. Evans, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Viking Client Services, LLC, Case No. 0:21-cv-01528 (D. Minn.,
June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Viking Client Services -- https://www.vikingservice.com/ -- is a
national provider of electronic payment solutions, customer care,
billing and collection and recovery services rveys.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
367 Commerce Court
Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
Phone: (651) 770-9707
Fax: (651) 704-0907
Email: tommy@consumerjusticecenter.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Fails to Protect Customers' Info, Villalobos Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICARDO VILLALOBOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
AUDI OF AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13049 (D.N.J.,
June 28, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for
negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of confidence, breach of
implied contract, declaratory and injunctive relief, and violations
of the Drivers' Privacy Protection Act and the California's
Consumer Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' failure to employ reasonable
and appropriate measures to protect the personal identifying
information (PII) of the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated
customers against unauthorized access. In early March 2021, the
Defendants were informed that unauthorized third parties had gained
access to their customers' PII. Following an investigation, in May
2021, the Defendants confirmed the PII was unsecured and that it
had been stolen by cyberthieves. In June 2021, the Defendants began
notifying affected customers and state attorneys general about the
breach and data theft. As a result of the data breach, the
Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. They must now and in the
future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against
identity theft, the suit says.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer
with its principal place of business in Herndon, Virginia.
Audi of America, LLC is an automobile manufacturer its principal
place of business in Herndon, Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Karen N. Wilson-Robinson, Esq.
WILSON & BROWN, PLLC
2066 Central Park Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10710
Telephone: (646) 498-9816
Facsimile: (718) 425-0573
E-mail: karen@wilsonbrownlawyers.com
- and –
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: gmb@cglaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumers' Info Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen AG's U.S. entity and its Audi brand were hit with a
class action for a data breach that allegedly compromised 3.3
million consumers' personal information. In the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey, a California consumer filed a suit
against the automakers on behalf of other current and prospective
car buyers whose information was allegedly compromised by hackers.
In June 2021, Volkswagen and Audi notified consumers of an incident
in which consumer information was potentially obtained and/or
accessed when one of their vendors left the data unsecured. The
information potentially affected by this incident included the
consumers' names, contact information and (for some) driver's
license numbers or other similar identification number. The suit
alleges that the automakers did not adequately safeguard consumer
data from 2014-2019, which was gathered for purposes of sales and
marketing campaigns.
The suit alleges claims of negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of
confidence, breach of implied contract, as well as violations of
the Driver's Privacy Protection Act and the California Consumer
Privacy Act. Plaintiff is seeking damages, reimbursement of costs
for out-of-pocket expenses such as credit monitoring services, and
improvements to Volkswagen's and Audi's data security systems.
We will monitor this suit, especially in regard to the claims under
the California Consumer Privacy Act, to see what (if any) lessons
can be learned or precedent set. [GN]
WANG HUYNH GROUP: Duncan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wang Huynh Group LLC.
The case is styled as Eugene Duncan, for himself and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Wang Huynh Group LLC, Case
No. 1:21-cv-03691 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Wang Huynh Group LLC is a California Domestic Limited-Liability
Company .[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradly Gurion Marks, Esq.
THE MARKS LAW FIRM PC
175 Varick Street 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10014
Phone: (646) 770-3775
Fax: (646) 867-2639
Email: brad@markslawfirm.net
WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Foster Youth Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Amon, writing for The Imprint, reports that Washington
youth will no longer sleep in cars, offices and hotel rooms while
in foster care, under a proposed agreement between children's
lawyers and the Department of Children, Youth, and Families.
Once signed by a federal judge, the settlement reached June 18
requires the state to create alternative plans to house foster
youth by Nov. 1. Provisions to improve their care and treatment --
such as adequate nutrition and proper schooling -- will go into
effect immediately upon signing.
The state ombuds for foster care, Patrick Dowd, was cautiously
optimistic about the legal development, saying he is "pleased" many
provisions will go into effect immediately. But he warned that it
will be "window dressing" if children aren't placed in appropriate
settings with the services they need.
For years, hundreds of Washington foster youth who social workers
failed to place in homes or group care have spent nights in
government offices and hotel rooms -- even social workers' cars --
sites that are ill-equipped for the proper care of traumatized
youth separated from their families.
In January, two nonprofit legal organizations and a private law
firm filed a class action lawsuit in Seattle's U.S. District Court
on behalf of three foster children, alleging that the practices
relied upon by the child welfare agency compounded children's
mental health troubles, disrupted their education and destroyed
their ability to trust adults -- "extinguishing any hope" they have
for long-term stability.
The lawsuit, filed Jan. 28, detailed the circumstances of three
children in foster care who the state housed in emergency
placements like hotels and offices. They are identified in court
documents by their initials: D.Y., a 13-year-old who has lived in
30 foster and group homes since he was removed from his mother in
2016 and H.A., a 16-year-old foster youth moved 15 times over five
years, including to placements in out-of-state institutions in
Idaho, Tennessee and Utah. Sixteen-year-old D.S. entered foster
care last year and has not had a stable home since April 2020 --
cycling between one-night stays, hotels and state offices.
In their lawsuit, Disability Rights Washington, the
California-based National Center for Youth Law and Carney Gillespie
Isitt allege that the child welfare department's policies violate
the rights of foster children with disabilities under the U.S.
Constitution, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act of 1980.
Under the agreement reached Friday before U.S. District Judge
Barbara J. Rothstein, the state must tell the court by Sept. 1 how
it will stop housing children in hotels, motels and offices.
In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Children,
Youth, and Families said the office is "working with our provider
community to ensure that we have placement options appropriate for
these high-needs youth."
Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached by June 22 for
this article.
The proposed court order will halt the practice of housing kids in
cars, hotels and offices on Nov. 1. From now until then, youth with
nowhere suitable to sleep will be cared for under a 13-point list
of treatment guidelines. In the interim period, the Department of
Children, Youth, and Families must prioritize hotel stays over
offices overnights, and children in those emergency foster care
placements for more than five nights must be able to keep the same
hotel room and be able to leave their belongings there. The
agreement also requires that if a child must spend night hours in
an office or car -- not including transport time -- an incident
report must be written, and the child's attorney notified.
In October, The Imprint published the story of one teen,
then-16-year-old Espen James, a member of the Tlingit and Haida
Indian Tribes of Alaska. Over six months last year, she spent most
nights in temporary overnight housing, including one night in a
social worker's Prius in the parking lot of a government building.
Espen, who is transgender, said in an interview last year she was
offered placement in an all-male group home.
"I told them I wouldn't take it," she said, "so they made me spend
the night in an office parking lot."
Espen is only one face behind the numbers. The Washington State
Office of the Family and Children's Ombuds reported that 220 foster
youth spent 1,863 nights in hotels or office buildings in the
fiscal year ending Aug. 1, because the state charged with their
care had nowhere better to house them. The watchdog office began
tracking the number of nights foster children had to sleep in
hotels and offices in 2015, when 72 children spent 120 nights in
those settings. As of May, 194 foster youth have spent 1,608 nights
in hotels or offices in the 2021 fiscal year.
Dowd -- whose ombuds office has produced annual reports detailing
the trauma caused by housing children in hotels and offices -- said
the problem is no simple matter to fix.
"A lot of these youth have very special needs; they need a
therapeutic placement," he said. "If the department comes up with
placements that fall short, we're not gaining any ground."
In these periods of living virtually homeless in foster care, Espen
and other children have reported being given few nutritional
options other than fast food or supermarket items. They've spent
entire days in government offices, with only a phone to distract
them, youth and their lawyers report. Under the proposed agreement,
the child welfare agency must provide food that meets young
people's dietary needs as well as healthy snacks. It must also
transport the children to school or provide space for online
school.
In its statement, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families
said the negotiations over the underlying merits of the case filed
by youth advocates are ongoing. The June 25 initial agreement
involves "limited steps the agency will take in a very challenging
situation."
In the past, Department Secretary Ross Hunter has told The Imprint
that housing children in offices and hotels is "an egregious
problem," using the word "cruel."
The Department has denied having a policy of housing youth in cars.
But in addition to The Imprint's reporting, such troubling
experiences have been documented by King5, a local television
station. In May, the station aired an investigation reporting that
youth were being kept overnight in cars as punishment for refusing
a foster or group home placement. [GN]
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Montelongo Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Dispatchers
------------------------------------------------------------------
MIGUEL MONTELONGO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC.; WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC.; WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS
HOLDINGS, LLC; and JOHN DOE CORPORATIONS I-C, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-03434 (N.D. Ill., June 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated dispatchers and routers
overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek.
Mr. Montelongo has worked for the Defendants as a dispatcher and
router from approximately 2010 through the present.
Waste Management, Inc. is a trash disposal and management company,
headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. is a provider of waste
management services located in Illinois.
Waste Management of Illinois Holdings, LLC is a provider of waste
management services located in Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 986-5889
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and –
James L. Simon, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza, Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
E- mail: james@bswages.com
- and –
Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq.
Christopher J. Bendau, Esq.
BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC
P.O. Box 97066
Phoenix, AZ 85060
Telephone: (480) 382-5176
(216) 395-4226
E-mail: cliff@bswages.com
WIRELESS LIFESTYLE: DeMarcus Suit Claims Unpaid Wages, Retaliation
------------------------------------------------------------------
TRACY DeMARCUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WIRELESS LIFESTYLE; SPRINT BY WIRELESS
LIFESTYLE; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV23770 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 25, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California Business and Professions Code including retaliation,
unpaid overtime, failure to provide meal periods or compensate
employee, failure to maintain required records, improper charge
backs, failure to pay for all time worked, unfair business
practices, conversion, and wrongful termination.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a store manager in Los
Angeles County, California from October 2018 until June 26, 2020.
Wireless Lifestyle is a provider of wireless telephone services
doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
Sprint By Wireless Lifestyle is a retail company doing business in
Los Angeles County, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Duchrow, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. DUCHROW
8929 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 204
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 452-4900
Facsimile: (310) 452-4901
[*] ICA Urges Small Businesses to Submit Covid-19 BI Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
InsuranceNews.com.au reports that the Insurance Council of
Australia (ICA) is urging small businesses to submit a claim if
they believe they have business interruption (BI) cover for
COVID-19 lockdowns, following Friday's test case defeat in the High
Court.
However, ICA warns claims may not be finalised until the conclusion
of the second test case, which is scheduled for a hearing in
September.
As reported by insuranceNEWS.com.au in a Breaking News bulletin on
Friday, the High Court denied ICA's application to appeal last
year's NSW Court of Appeal ruling that insurers can't rely on
exclusion wordings citing the Quarantine Act and subsequent
amendments.
"Finalisation of many claims may still not take place until further
clarity is provided by a second test case, underway now in the
Federal Court," ICA says in a statement.
"This second test case will determine the meaning of policy
wordings around disease definition, COVID outbreak proximity, the
impact of government mandates, and other policy wording matters.
"However, this does not prevent policyholders from lodging a claim
now."
ICA criticised "some class action law firms" for suggesting the
June 25 decision only has implications for customers of the two
insurers directly involved in the first test case -- Hollard and
HDI -- and that customers of other insurers will need to pursue
their own legal remedies.
"Insurance Council members have previously committed to applying
the rulings of the courts in the BI test cases in a consistent way
when assessing all claims."
ICA says if a claim is denied by an insurer, the Australian
Financial Complaints Authority can make binding decisions on claims
up to $1.085 million free of charge for policyholders, "in contrast
to the substantial fees sought by class action funders and
lawyers".
"It is the position of the ICA that policyholders affected by COVID
shutdowns are entitled to lodge a claim with their broker or
insurer against their business interruption cover," CEO Andrew Hall
said.
"As we are also nearing the end of the financial year, lodging a
claim in this matter can be complex and requires gathering evidence
-- that's why policyholders should start that process now.
"While many claims will have to wait until the outcome of the
second test case, lodging a claim now means that once that outcome
is known a resolution can take place quickly, providing certainty
for policyholders."
Documents filed to the High Court last year said Quarantine Act
issues affected more than 250,000 business interruption policies
and potential claims were estimated at $10 billion.
Gordon Legal Partner Andrew Grech says insurers have been "taking
every legal option" to slow down the process and avoid settling
claims related to BI claims. He says that approach is likely to
continue.
"After months of preparation we will commence a class action
against two major insurers imminently," he said on June 25.
"Regrettably it is now clear that the only way to force insurers to
do the right thing by their customers in the shortest time possible
is through the strength in numbers and collective power of a class
action." [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***