/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210707.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 7, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 129 Headlines 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Langevin Says 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Shipman Claims 3M COMPANY: Chambers Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Crider Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products 3M COMPANY: Guillen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline ACTION COLLECTION: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit ADVANCE KIDS INC: Buckans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AETNA LIFE: Wants Court to Hear Spinal Surgery Coverage Dispute AFFECTIONATE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Daywalt Claims ALASKA: To Begin Gender-Affirming Healthcare Coverage on Medicaid ALDI INC: Vesota Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ALYK INC: Faces Manson Suit Over Defective LOLA Tampons AMAZON.COM INC: Exploiting Consumers by Price Gouging, Suit Says ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Caicedo Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Artificially Inflate Stock Price, Keippel Says ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline ATHIRA PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of August 24 Deadline ATHIRA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Supreme Court of Canada Tosses VLT Class Action AUGUSTA COOPERATIVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Faces Hayes Suit Over Alleged Data Breach BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Files Suit in S.D. New York BANK OF AMERICA: Control CDS Market, State Investment Council Says BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Nixed BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending BELMONT PEANUTS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York BIG SUGAR: Court Upholds Residents' Claims in Pollution Lawsuit BRIDGESCAPE CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California BROOKLYN, NY: Homeowners' Civil Rights Class Action Can Proceed CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Upheld Denial of Class Certification CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Securities Class Action Suit CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Building Collapse CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline CLEANSPARK INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing COLORADO: Inmates' Class Suit Against Governor Can Proceed CONTEXTLOGIC INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Asmat Suit Alleges CST CONSULTANTS: Suit May Help Quebecers Recoup Enrolment Fees CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Properly Pay Pharmacists, Esfandiari Alleges CVS PHARMACY: Cleared of US$121M Charges in Fraud Class Action DR. REDDY'S: Alleged Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Underway DR. REDDY'S: Awaits Final Approval of Namenda Settlement DR. REDDY'S: Canadian Consumer Class Suit Underway DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Underway DR. REDDY'S: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing DRAFTKINGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 31 Deadline DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 31 Deadline ENSITE USA: Faces Albert Suit Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' OT EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Class Action Settlement Approval EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rouse Files FCRA Suit in D. Utah EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shen May Replead Securities Complaint FITLIFE BRANDS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York FREEDOM CREDIT: Violates Repossession Notice in UCC, Ibeleme Claims FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Hingston Sues Over Drop in Share Price FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline GOLDMAN SACHS: Bryan Cave Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling GOODRX HOLDINGS: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing GOOGLE LLC: US Judge Affirms Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Consumer Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to E.D.N.Y. HILCORP ENERGY: Underpays Gas Royalties, Carl Suit Alleges HILL TO GROVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Bensalem Sues Over Forced PIP Requirements HOME POINT: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 20 Deadline HOME POINT: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 20 Deadline HUMM KOMBUCHA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Battery Defects INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $1.4 Million Fees JAMES KERR: Mathis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma JUUL LABS: Agrees to Pay North Carolina to Settle Vaping Lawsuits JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis JUUL LABS: Ferndale School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth JUUL LABS: Markets E-Cigarette to Youth in Ill., School Alleges JUUL LABS: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis LEMON CREEK: Defendants Appeal Fuel Spill Class Action Decision LOANCARE LLC: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters LOS MARIACHIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says LOUISIANA STATE: Three New Plaintiffs Added to Title IX Lawsuit M1 HOLDINGS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says MADISON SQUARE: Merger Vote Gets Ok From Delaware Ch. Court Judge MAGELLAN HRSC: Court Issues Opinion on Coffin Transfer Bid Denial MANGO STAND: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York MARYLAND: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Pending MARYLAND: Judge to Issue Decision On Unemployment Class Action MDL 3000: Court Denies Transfer of Hayes' False Imprisonment Row MDL 3001: 2 Gambling Apps Cases Transferred to N.D. Cal. MDL 3002: Accellion Data Breach Disputes Transfer Request Denied MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Ruling in Putative Class Suit MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey MONTANA SKY: Guy Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia NAT'L COLLEGIATE: SCOTUS Upheld Rulings in Federal Antitrust Suit NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS: Court Enters Order for Class Cert. Bids OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington OCUGEN INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of August 17 Deadline OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline OLIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated IPP Antitrust Suit OLIN CORP: Shin-Etsu & Formosa Dismissed From Antitrust Suits OPTION CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Folan Suit Says PALISADES ACQUISITION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid PAR ELECTRICAL: Curley Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California PARK AVENUE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Philips CPAP Machine POINT LOMA: Faces Singh Wage-and-Hour Suit in California PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey POST FOODS: Judge Finalizes Attorney Fees in Labeling Settlement PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: High Court Tosses Appeal in Class Action PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y. PURDUE PHARMA: Rochester City SD Set to Settle Opioid Lawsuits REKOR SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline REKOR SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds August 30 Deadline RISHAVENA INC: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Wages, Millien Alleges ROACH & MURTHA: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline ROCKET COMPANIES: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 30 Deadline ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 30 Deadline SANTA ROSA: Papadimitropoulos Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn. SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach SEEKING ALPHA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Harris Sues Over Fruit Drinks' Deceptive Labels SOUTHERN THERAPY: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought SUN LIFE: Refuses Change to Death Benefit Option C, Insurers Say SYNNEX CORPORATION: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Kent Suit Alleges TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Class Suit TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of August 23 Deadline TEVA PHARMA: Suffolk County Jury to Decide on Opioid Class Lawsuit TEX MEX II: Onofre Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips TIER 1: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Mayo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania TRANSUNION LLC: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in FCRA Class Action TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL: Beasley Balks at Teachers' Unpaid Classes TUTOR PERINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gamez Suit Claims UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver's Agreement Bars Class Action Lawsuit UBIQUITI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: Zuniga FLSA Suit Removed to D. Nevada UNIFIN INC: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware UNITED DEBT: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California USAA CASUALTY: Class Certification Filing Deadline Extended UZID LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York VERMONT HOTEL: Ex Plaintiff Calls Suit a Necessary 1st Recognition VIRGIN GALACTIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline VIRGINIA: Makes Progress, But Thousands Still Waiting on Benefits W. R. GRACE & CO: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid for Summary Judgment in WCERS Suit Pending WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway ********* 3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Langevin Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- GEORGE LANGEVIN, 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-01948-RMG (D.S.C., June 29, 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. 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: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Shipman Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ALLEN SHIPMAN, 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-01957-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 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 testicular 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: Chambers Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH CHAMBERS, 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-01961-RMG (D.S.C., June 30, 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. As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with bladder 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: Crider Sues Over Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products -------------------------------------------------------------- CLIFFORD CRIDER, 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-01945-RMG (D.S.C., June 29, 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: Guillen Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICK GUILLEN, 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-01947-RMG (D.S.C., June 29, 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 prostate 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 ACELRX PHARMA: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 9 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ('AcelRx' or 'the Company') (NASDAQ:ACRX) for violations of 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 17, 2020 and February 12, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before August 9, 2021. We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by email at brian@schallfirm.com. The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. AcelRx failed to maintain appropriate controls over disclosure and marketing of its lead product candidate, DSUVIA. The Company made false and misleading claims about the efficacy and associated risks of DSUVIA in its marketing and advertisements. This led to a heightened risk of regulatory enforcement action against the Company. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about AcelRx, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. CONTACT: The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq., www.schallfirm.com Office: 310-301-3335 info@schallfirm.com [GN] ACTION COLLECTION: Maman Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Action Collection Agencies, Inc. The case is styled as Nir Maman, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Action Collection Agencies, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-03755 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Action Collection Agencies, Inc. -- https://www.actioncollection.com/ -- specializes in third party collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C. 735 Central Avenue Woodmere, NY 11598 Phone: (516) 668-6945 Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ACUITY BRANDS: Continues to Defend Georgia Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acuity Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On January 3, 2018, a shareholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between June 29, 2016 and April 3, 2017. On February 20, 2018, a different shareholder filed a second class action complaint in the same venue against the same parties on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's stock between October 15, 2015 and April 3, 2017. The cases were transferred on April 30, 2018, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and subsequently were consolidated as In re Acuity Brands, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-02140-MHC (N.D. Ga.). On October 5, 2018, the court-appointed lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, which supersedes the initial complaints. The Consolidated Complaint is brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between October 7, 2015 and April 3, 2017 and alleges that the company and certain of its current and former officers/executives violated the federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements and/or omitting to disclose material adverse facts that (i) concealed known trends negatively impacting sales of our products and (ii) overstated our ability to achieve profitable sales growth. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. The company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On August 12, 2019, the court entered an order granting the company's motion to dismiss in part and dismissing all claims based on 42 of the 47 statements challenged in the Consolidated Complaint but also denying the motion in part and allowing claims based on five challenged statements to proceed to discovery. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Company permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's class certification order, and the briefing of that appeal has been completed. Estimating an amount or range of possible losses resulting from litigation proceedings is inherently difficult, particularly where the matters involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages and are in the stages of the proceedings where key evidential and legal issues have not been resolved. Acuity said, "For these reasons, we are currently unable to predict the ultimate timing or outcome of or reasonably estimate the possible losses or a range of possible losses resulting from the matters described above. We are insured, in excess of a self-retention, for Directors and Officers liability." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Acuity Brands, Inc. provides lighting and building management solutions and services for commercial, institutional, industrial, infrastructure, and residential applications in North America and internationally. Acuity Brands, Inc. was founded in 2001 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. ADVANCE KIDS INC: Buckans Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Advance Kids, Inc. et al. The case is styled as Lillye Buckans, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Advance Kids, Inc., Does 1-50, Case No. 34-2021-00303450-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Cty., July 1, 2021). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Advance Kids -- https://www.advancekids.com/ -- is committed to utilizing Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) to help individuals of all ages and disabilities to achieve a high quality of life.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037-3107 Phone: 858-551-1223 Fax: 858-551-1232 Email: norm@bamlawca.com AETNA LIFE: Wants Court to Hear Spinal Surgery Coverage Dispute --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacklyn Wille, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that Aetna Life Ins. Co. wants the Ninth Circuit to hear a dispute over its spinal surgery coverage, saying the case was wrongly certified as a class action despite individual differences in whether plaintiffs exhausted their health plans' internal claims procedures. The health plans at issue "contain express requirements mandating that a claimant exhaust two levels of internal administrative appeals before filing suit," Aetna said in a June 25 petition to appeal. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California "made this finding -- but then it sidestepped the obvious individualized inquiry that exhaustion requires, which should destroy commonality. [GN] AFFECTIONATE HOME: Underpays Home Health Aides, Daywalt Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ANN MARGARET DAYWALT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AFFECTIONATE HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-02867 (E.D. Penn., June 28, 2021) is a collective and class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful payroll practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Plaintiff begun her employment with the Defendant on or about June 2, 2018 in the position of Home Health Aide. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant failed to accurately track and maintain records of his and similarly situated Home Health Aides hours worked. As a result, despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week, they were not paid their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours work in excess of 40 in a workweek, the Plaintiff says. Affectionate Home Health Care Services, LLC provides home health care services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Preeya Bansal, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 273-1054 Fax: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: pbansal@phillyemploymentlawyer.com ALASKA: To Begin Gender-Affirming Healthcare Coverage on Medicaid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Berman, writing for Anchorage Daily News, reports that gender-affirming health care will soon become a covered benefit for Alaskans on Medicaid. The change is the result of a settlement in a lawsuit filed against the state health department that challenged the legality of excluding transgender Alaskans from health coverage related to their gender transitions. Last year, three Alaskans sued the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services Commissioner Adam Crum and the department, arguing the state's refusal to cover transition-related health care was a civil rights violation. A settlement in the case was reached early this year. It stipulated an end to previous exclusions of gender-affirming health coverage -- including "treatment, therapy, surgery, or other procedures related to gender reassignment," and for "transsexual surgical procedures or secondary consequences" -- from the state Medicaid plan. The state posted a public notice reflecting those policy changes, which are scheduled to go into effect July 25. The 2020 lawsuit was an amended version of one filed in 2019. At the time, Alaska was one of less than a dozen states with a Medicaid program that explicitly excluded coverage for gender-affirming care. Gender dysphoria is classified by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as "the clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of function associated with the incongruence between a transgender person's gender identity and assigned sex." The lawsuit described incidents where the three plaintiffs -- Swan Being, Robin Black and Austin Reed -- sought care and were told that Alaska Medicaid would not cover it. Being is a Homer woman in her early 70s who was medically diagnosed with gender dysphoria and had been living as a woman for more than five years, according to the lawsuit. Although her doctors had recommended she continue to receive medical treatment related to her hormone levels, the lawsuit stated that she received a notice from a contractor for the state that said "hormonal injections and lab work associated with gender reassignment is not a covered benefit under Alaska Medicaid." Black and Reed report similar experiences in the lawsuit: Both were denied coverage for different surgical procedures meant to treat their diagnosed gender dysphoria, their attorneys wrote in the lawsuit. Carl Charles, an attorney with Lambda Legal, was one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs alongside the Northern Justice Project, a local law firm. His team helped win a recent ruling in Alaska in which a federal judge sided with a transgender state employee who sued the state on a similar allegation of health care discrimination. "Transition-related health care is essential health care," Charles said in an emailed statement on June 28. "This is a significant step toward ensuring the health and safety of all transgender Alaskans." A spokesperson from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services said in an emailed statement on June 29 that the settlement and recent regulation amendments were a result of the Affordable Care Act and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Bostock V. Clayton Country. Editor's note: This story has been updated to clarify a quote by Carl Charles and add a statement from the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services on June 29. [GN] ALDI INC: Vesota Files Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALDI, Inc. The case is styled as Michelle Nicole Vesota, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALDI, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03574 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. ALDI Inc. -- https://www.aldi.us/ -- owns and operates grocery stores. The Company offers grocery, meat, fresh produce, wine and beer, beverages, and other home products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Spencer Sheehan, Esq. SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 Cuttermill Road, Suite 409 Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: (516) 260-7080 Email: Spencer@spencersheehan.com ALYK INC: Faces Manson Suit Over Defective LOLA Tampons ------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MANSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALYK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:21-cv-05688 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of breach of express warranty, breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, fraud, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing and marketing of defective LOLA Tampons. The products are defective because they unravel and/or come apart upon removal from the body, and in some cases, cause users to seek medical attention to remove tampon pieces left in the body. Additionally, the defect can cause infections, vaginal irritation, localized vaginal injury, and other symptoms. The defect renders the products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose and therefore renders the products worthless. The Defendant is well-aware of the issue as several consumers already complained about it but it refuses to do anything to remediate or address the issue, the suit says. Alyk, Inc. is a company that provides personal hygiene products, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Alec M. Leslie, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com aleslie@bursor.com AMAZON.COM INC: Exploiting Consumers by Price Gouging, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yelena Dzhanova at Business Insider reports that a lawsuit accuses Amazon of "exploiting consumers in their most vulnerable hour" by hiking up prices on medical items, cleaning products, canned food and other necessary supplies during the coronavirus pandemic. The class-action lawsuit has now expanded to potentially include all Amazon shoppers across the US who purchased such products, the law firm Hagens Berman said. The lawsuit says American consumers turned to Amazon and other online retailers at the height of the coronavirus pandemic in the spring of 2020, when stay-at-home orders and the threat of the disease made it difficult to purchase much-needed food and supplies. "In this environment-consistent with the directions of government and public health officials-consumers have understandably turned to online purchasing, and Amazon in particular, to fulfill their essential needs," the lawsuit says. "Without venturing into public and risking exposure to themselves and others, with just a few clicks Americans can purchase consumer goods from Amazon that will be delivered to their homes." Amazon did not immediately reply to a request for comment from Insider asking about the lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges the e-commerce giant significantly hiked up prices of various goods. The cost of face masks, for example, jumped 500%, the lawsuit alleges, from $20 to $120. Disinfectant cost went up by 100%, the lawsuit says, while the cost of an ordinary staple pantry item like black beans went up by 672%. Among other items whose costs drastically went up on Amazon were pain relievers, flour, and cold remedies, according to the lawsuit. The complaint, first filed in April 2020 in California's Northern District Court, says some items went up by as much as 1,000%. "Some of the unlawful increases were on sales of products supplied by third parties, sales which Amazon controls and reaps huge profits from," the lawsuit says. Though there is no federal law explicitly making price-gouging illegal, many states have outlawed the practice during an emergency, like a natural disaster or pandemic. "Amazon is the functional seller of these products and is responsible when price-gouged sales violate the law. But in addition, Amazon has inflated prices on its own inventory of products, which Amazon supplies and sells directly to consumers," according to the complaint. Amazon in May said Congress should pass a federal law against price gouging to make one clear standard and definition. Hagens Berman put out a call on its website asking people who've purchased from online retailers during the COVID-19 pandemic to describe their experience. "Unfair price gouging may have caused you to pay more," the call says, directing consumers to fill out a form "to find out your consumer rights to potential compensation." In March of last year, Amazon said it removed almost 4,000 individual sellers for price gouging during the pandemic. But months into the pandemic, sellers continued to charge up to 14 times more than other retailers for regular household products like soap and hand sanitizer. [GN] ANTHEM COMPANIES: Faces Caicedo Suit Over Unpaid OT, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- EUGENIA CAICEDO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE WELLPOINT COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05642 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, denial of medical leave and retaliation pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act and unlawful discrimination practices pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a field sales representative in Anthem's Medicare Department in June 1996 until September 2018. The Anthem Companies, Inc., formerly known as The Wellpoint Companies, Inc., is a healthcare enterprise that provides programs and services to uninsured and underinsured individuals, with its principal executive office located at 120 Monument Circle, Indianapolis, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES: Artificially Inflate Stock Price, Keippel Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ JULIAN KEIPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARRAY TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a ATI INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, LLC, JIM FUSARO, NIPUL PATEL, TROY ALSTEAD, ORLANDO D. ASHFORD, FRANK CANNOVA, RON P. CORIO, BRAD FORTH, PETER JONNA, JASON LEE, ATI INVESTMENT PARENT, LLC, OAKTREE ATI INVESTORS, L.P., OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV, L.P., and OAKTREE POWER OPPORTUNITIES FUND IV (PARALLEL), L.P., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05658 (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and misleading statements in the December 2020 and March 2021 initial public offerings (IPO) of Array Technologies in order to artificially inflate prices of Array securities between October 14, 2020 and May 11, 2021. In the offerings, the Defendants made no mention of issues revolving around, inter alia, material negative impacts of rising steel and freight costs on business operations. Furthermore, subsequent to the offerings, the Defendants repeatedly and consistently painted a materially misleading picture of the company's business and prospects that did not reflect these rising costs, the suit says. When the truth emerged, the company's stock dropped $11.49 per share on May 12, 2021 to close at $13.46 per share on unusually high trading volume. As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Array Technologies, Inc., formerly known as ATI Intermediate Holdings, LLC, is a global technology company, with its principal executive offices located at 3901 Midway Place NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico. ATI Investment Parent, LLC was the former parent company of ATI Intermediate Holdings, LLC that maintains an office in New York. Oaktree ATI Investors, L.P. is an investment company that maintains an office in New York. Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV, L.P. is an investment company that maintains an office in New York. Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV (Parallel), L.P. is an investment company that maintains an office in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com ATHIRA PHARMA: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 24 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of investors that purchased Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Investors have until August 24, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. 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. If you purchased Athira common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO and suffered a loss, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. (212) 355-4648 investigations@bespc.com www.bespc.com [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Johnson Fistel Reminds of August 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson Fistel, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of Athira Pharma, Inc. ("Athira" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ATHA). The class action is on behalf of shareholders who purchased Athira common stock pursuant or traceable to the September 2020 initial public stock offering (the "IPO"). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2021. On or about September 18, 2020, Athira sold 12 million shares of stock in its initial public stock offering (the "IPO") at $17 a share, raising about $204,000,000 in new capital. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact, omitted material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading, and failed to make necessary disclosures required under the rules and regulations governing its preparation. The lawsuit alleges defendants misrepresented and omitted crucial truths in the Registration Statement for the Company's IPO regarding Athira CEO and President Leen Kawas. When the Company announced after the close of trading on June 17, 2021, that the Athira Board placed Dr. Kawas on temporary leave in light of claims that Dr. Kawas falsified research results in various academic papers, Athira's stock plunged approximately 40% from $18.24 to $11.15 per share, well below the $17.00 IPO price, causing injury to all those who purchased Athira common stock pursuant or traceable to the IPO. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff in this class action, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff will act on behalf of all other class members in directing the Athira class-action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the class-action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share any potential future recovery of the Athira class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. If you are interested in learning more about the case, please contact Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. About Johnson Fistel Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 24 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Western District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA) securities between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is captioned Wang v. Athira Pharma, Inc., No. 21-cv-00861, and charges Athira Pharma and its CEO with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 24, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Athira Pharma is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on developing small molecules to restore neuronal health and stop neurodegeneration for those suffering from devastating neurological diseases, including Alzheimer's disease. The Athira Pharma class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the research conducted by Athira Pharma's President and CEO, defendant Leen Kawas, which formed the foundation for Athira Pharma's product candidates and intellectual property, was tainted by Kawas's scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data; and (2) as a result, defendants' positive statements about Athira Pharma's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and omitted material facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading. On June 17, 2021, Athira Pharma issued a press release announcing that Athira Pharma's Board of Directors had placed Kawas on temporary leave pending a review of actions stemming from doctoral research Kawas conducted while at Washington State University. An article published in STAT News later that day revealed that the investigation of Kawas related to allegations that she altered images in four separate papers relating to her research on hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), a protein with the potential to treat Alzheimer's disease and other neurological disorders. The article noted that although Athira Pharma "has since moved on to a different molecule than the one Kawas was working on, it still aims to target HGF. And so Kawas's doctoral work laid the biological groundwork that Athira continues to use in their approach to treating Alzheimer's." On this news, Athira Pharma's stock price fell by nearly 39%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Athira Pharma securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Athira Pharma 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 Athira Pharma class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Athira Pharma class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 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. Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices. Contacts: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP 655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101 • 619-231-1058 J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900 jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN] ATHIRA PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 24 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 28 announced the filing of class action lawsuits on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Athira Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATHA): (a) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted in September 2020 (the "IPO" or "Offering"); or (b) between September 18, 2020 and June 17, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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 24, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Athira securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and/or during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Athira class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2111.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 24, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuits, the Offering documents contained and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the research conducted by the Company's Chief Executive Officer and President, Leen Kawas, was tainted by Kawas' scientific misconduct, including the manipulation of key data through the altering of Western blot images; (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, 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. To join the Athira class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2111.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Supreme Court of Canada Tosses VLT Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- MarketScreener reports that by a slim majority, the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") has recently struck and dismissed a proposed class action brought against the Atlantic Lottery Corporation ("ALC") with respect to the licensing of video lottery terminals ("VLTs") in Newfoundland and Labrador, finding that the plaintiffs' claims that VLTs are inherently dangerous and deceptive disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The lead plaintiffs, Douglas Babstock and Fred Small, applied for certification of a class action against ALC, on behalf of any natural person resident in Newfoundland and Labrador who paid to play VLTs in that province in the six years preceding the class action, or on behalf of the estate of any such person. Relying on three causes of action: (1) waiver of tort; (2) breach of contract; and (3) unjust enrichment, the plaintiffs sought a gain-based award, quantified by the profit that ALC earned by licensing VLTs. In a 5-4 decision, the SCC found that the plaintiffs' claims for waiver of tort, breach of contract and unjust enrichment disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and set aside the certification order. A minority of the SCC disagreed with the majority's position regarding breach of contract, and found that the class certification should be allowed for that aspect of the claim. Most notably, the SCC unanimously agreed that waiver of tort is not an independent cause of action for disgorgement under Canadian law and should be abandoned. Waiver of Tort With respect to the waiver of tort claim, the plaintiffs' alleged that "ALC breached a duty to warn of the inherent dangers associated with VLTs, including the risk of addiction and suicidal ideation", which justified an award based on disgorgement. Writing for the majority, Justice Russel Brown stated: The plaintiffs say that a claim relying on waiver of tort as an independent cause of action for disgorgement has at least a reasonable chance of succeeding at trial. Before the [Newfoundland and Labrador] Court of Appeal's decision in this case, however, no Canadian authority had recognized such a cause of action, although the plaintiffs rely on a line of class action certification decisions in which courts have refrained from finding that it is plain and obvious that such an action does not exist. The plaintiffs place significant emphasis on Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477 ("Microsoft") where this Court, citing conflicting authorities on this point declined to resolve it (para. 97). The SCC took this as an opportunity to clarify that the novel cause of action does not exist in Canadian law and that "the term "waiver of tort" is confusing, and should be abandoned. The SCC further clarified that disgorgement is not an independent cause of action, but rather, is an alternative remedy for certain forms of wrongful conduct. By pleading disgorgement as an independent cause of action, the plaintiffs' sought to establish a new category of wrongful conduct - one that was akin to negligence but did not require proof of damage. Although disgorgement is available for some forms of wrongdoing without proof of damage (e.g. breach of fiduciary duty), the SCC found that plaintiffs are not entitled to pursue a remedy for disgorgement in cases that are akin to negligence where they cannot prove - or choose not to prove - resulting damage. On this basis, the SCC unanimously held that the novel cause of action pursued by the plaintiffs had no reasonable chance of succeeding at trial. Breach of Contract As with waiver of tort, the majority also found that the plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract disclosed no reasonable cause of action, as there were no remedies available to them. The plaintiffs alleged that ALC's offer of VLTs to the public, and the plaintiffs' corresponding acceptance by paying to play, constituted a contract. The plaintiffs further alleged that an implied term of said contract required ALC "to provide safe games that were fit for use and of merchantable quality, to use reasonable skill and care in its provision of VLT gaming, and to act in good faith." According to the plaintiffs, ALC breached these terms by supplying deceptive VLTs. The plaintiffs sought only non-compensatory damages, namely disgorgement and punitive damages. Accordingly, the majority approached the issue of whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action by considering whether the remedies sought were actually available to the plaintiffs. The majority acknowledged that disgorgement may be available for breach of contract, but "only where other remedies are inadequate, and only where the circumstances warrant such an award." The majority concluded that the plaintiffs' gambling losses were readily quantifiable, and as such, could be cured through an award of compensatory damages. In other words, alternate remedies to disgorgement were not inadequate. In coming to this determination, the majority noted that "compensatory damages are not inadequate merely because a plaintiff is unwilling, or does not have sufficient evidence, to prove loss", and that disgorgement for breach of contract is not available where a plaintiff is merely attempting to avoid having to establish that they suffered damage. In terms of punitive damages, the majority found that although the duty of good faith is an organizing principle of Canadian contract law, its application is generally confined to existing categories of contracts and obligations, and that the alleged contract in this case did not fit within any of these established categories. As a result, the majority concluded that the plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages also had no reasonable prospect of success. Writing for the minority, Justice Andromache Karakatsanis disagreed with the majority's conclusion regarding breach of contract, and found that it was not "plain and obvious" that this claim was bound to fail. The minority was of the view that there were several remedies available to the plaintiffs based on their pleadings, including nominal damages, declaratory relief, disgorgement, and punitive damages, and that the issue of whether the plaintiffs' were entitled to the benefit of any of these remedies, was a matter for the trial judge. Unjust Enrichment The SCC unanimously determined that the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The plaintiffs' pleadings alleged that there was a contract between ALC and VLT users, and there was no evidence that the contract was void. ALC acquired a benefit pursuant to said contract, and therefore, was justified in retaining that benefit. In addition, the SCC rejected the plaintiffs' argument that VLTs contravened the Criminal Code's prohibition against gambling games similar to Three-card Monte, concluding that there was no indication that VLTs operated in the same manner. Key Takeaways The majority of the SCC held that each of the plaintiffs' claims were bound to fail, because none of them disclosed a reasonable cause of action. Accordingly, the SCC ordered that the certification order be set aside and the plaintiffs' claim be struck in its entirety. This decision has definitively resolved the uncertainty surrounding the claim for waiver of tort and disgorgement, and will have a significant impact on the certification of class actions moving forward. As Justice Brown wrote for the majority: certification judges have had "little alternative but to affirm that the question of the doctrines availability is indeed a live issue for trial, which can and does result in certification to the detriment of the defendant, who is then practically compelled to pay a settlement to the plaintiff" (J.M. Martin, "Waiver of Tort: An Historical and Practical Study" (2012), 52 Can. Bus. L.J. 473, at para. 476 (footnote omitted); see also H.M. Rosenberg, "Waiving Goodbye: The Rise and Imminent Fall of Waiver of Tort in Class Proceedings" (2010), 6 Can. Class Action Rev. 37, at p. 38). Indeed, this Court's decision to refrain from striking the waiver of tort claim in Microsoft has been taken as an affirmative statement that such claims are viable ... Nothing is gained, and much court time and considerable litigant resources are lost, by leaving this issue unresolved. Prior to this decision, plaintiffs would be able to plead this novel claim and ride a waive towards certification, while avoiding to have to prove individual damage. By clarifying this issue, the SCC has narrowed the doorway to certification and levelled the playing field. See the decision here: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/18425/index.do 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. Patrick Sullivan (Whitelaw Twining) CLC (Canadian Litigation Counsel) The Exchange Tower 130 King St W #2700 Toronto ON M5X 1C7 CANADA Tel: 416860-8392 E-mail: Hbborlack@mccagueborlack.com URL: clcnow.com/ [GN] AUGUSTA COOPERATIVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, Incorporated. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, Incorporated, Case No. 1:21-cv-05703 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Augusta Cooperative Farm Bureau, Inc. (Augusta Co-op) -- https://www.augustacoop.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rural and agriculture lifestyle products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com AUTOMATION PERSONNEL: Faces Hayes Suit Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL HAYES; and KATRINA NASH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AUTOMATION PERSONNEL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00859-JHE (N.D. Ala., June 23, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of individuals who obtained temporary employment through Defendant, including name, Social Security number, and financial account information (collectively, "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). According to the complaint, on November 17, 2020, the Defendant "discovered suspicious activity impacting the operability of certain systems" (the "Data Breach"). At the time of the Data Breach, these "systems" stored the PII of more than 299,000 individuals that obtained temporary employment through Defendant. On December 24, 2020, reports began surfacing on the Internet that an archive of 440 GB of data that belong to Defendant had been "leaked on a popular hacker platform" after the Defendant refused to pay a ransom to cybercriminals and that "[s]ince the data was made freely available in the final week of November, it's safe to assume that multiple users of the hacker forum where it was posted had access to the data." On or around March 17, 2021, approximately four months after it learned of the Data Breach, Defendant began notifying Plaintiffs and Class Members of the Data Breach. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. The Defendant admits that the unencrypted PII exposed to "unauthorized activity" included names, Social Security numbers, and financial account information, the suit says. Automation Personnel Services, Inc. provides staffing solutions. The Company specializes in recruiting and screening applicants for light industrial, production, legal, medical, and warehouse positions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph "Jay" H. Aughtman, Esq. AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC 1772 Platt Place Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 215-9873 Facsimile: (334) 213-5663 E-mail: jay@aughtmanlaw.com -and- Erby J. Fischer, II MORGAN & MORGAN ALABAMA, PLLC 2317 3rd Avenue North, Suite 102 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (659) 204-6364 E-mail: efischer@forthepeople.com -and- John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX BUSINESS DIVISION 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmaxey@ForThePeople.com BALTIMORE LIFE: Griffin Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yvette Griffin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, All Plaintiffs v. The Baltimore Life Insurance Company, All Defendants; Q3M Insurance Solutions, LLC, Robert Hudson, Artreanua Carr, ThirdParty Defendant; Case No. 1:21-mc-00502 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The Baltimore Life Insurance Company -- https://www.baltlife.com/ -- operates as an insurance company. The Company provides life, health, and disability insurance services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants appears pro se. BANK OF AMERICA: Control CDS Market, State Investment Council Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ NEW MEXICO STATE INVESTMENT COUNCIL, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BOFA SECURITIES, INC.; BARCLAYS PLC; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS S.A.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; CITIGROUP, INC.; CITIBANK N.A.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS LIMITED; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; CREDIT SUISSE CAPITAL LLC; CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL; DEUTSCHE BANK AG; DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.; GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC; GOLDMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL; J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO.; J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; MORGAN STANLEY; MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. INTERNATIONAL PLC; MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL SERVICES, LLC; NATWEST GROUP PLC; NATWEST MARKETS PLC; NATWEST MARKETS SECURITIES, INC.; THE INTERNATIONAL SWAPS AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION, INC.; CREDITEX GROUP INC; HIS MARKIT, LTD.; and JANE DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00606-KK-JFR (D.N.M., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment and violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants are engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate the final auction price in the credit default swaps (CDS) market. They have implemented this conspiracy by using their power over the CDS auction process to rig the CDS auctions and produce a supra-competitively low CDS final auction price. Working with three entities over which the dealers yield significant power and influence, the conspiracy has yielded them billions of dollars in cartel profits at the expense of non-dealer market participants like the Plaintiff and the putative Class members. The Plaintiff brings this class action to stop the Defendants' alleged violations of federal antitrust law and federal market manipulation law, to obtain compensation for putative Class members who have suffered billions of dollars in injuries over the life of the Defendants' scheme, and to reform the CDS auction process. New Mexico State Investment Council is an institutional investment firm in New Mexico. Bank of America Corporation is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Bank of America, N.A. is a financial services company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. BofA Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm located in New York, New York. Barclays PLC is a British multinational universal bank, headquartered in London, England. Barclays Bank PLC is a British multinational universal bank, headquartered in London, England. Barclays Capital Inc. is a brokerage firm in New York, New York. BNP Paribas S.A. is an international banking group based in Paris, France. BNP Paribas Securities Corp. is a provider of banking and asset management services based in New York, New York. Citigroup, Inc. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services corporation headquartered in New York, New York. Citibank N.A. is the consumer division of financial services multinational Citigroup, headquartered in New York, New York. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is a banking and financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. Citigroup Global Markets Limited is a banking and financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. Credit Suisse Group AG is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. Credit Suisse AG is a global investment bank and financial services firm founded and based in Switzerland. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC is an investment banking company, headquartered in New York, New York. Credit Suisse Capital LLC is a financial services firm, headquartered in New York, New York. Credit Suisse International is a financial services firm based in Switzerland. Deutsche Bank AG is a multinational investment bank and financial services company headquartered in Frankfurt, Germany. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. is an investment advisory services firm, headquartered in New York, New York. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company headquartered in New York, New York. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC is an investment management company, headquartered in New York, New York. Goldman Sachs International is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company headquartered in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational investment bank and financial services holding company headquartered in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is an American national bank headquartered in Manhattan, New York. J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is an investment management company, headquartered in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company, headquartered in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC is an investment management company, headquartered in New York, New York. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC is a financial services firm based in London, England. Morgan Stanley Capital Services, LLC is an investment management company, headquartered in New York, New York. NatWest Group PLC is a banking and insurance holding company, based in Edinburgh, Scotland. NatWest Markets PLC is the investment banking arm of NatWest Group, based in London, England. NatWest Markets Securities, Inc. is a brokerage firm based in Stamford, Connecticut. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. is a trade organization of participants in the market for over-the-counter derivatives, headquartered in New York, New York. Creditex Group Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Intercontinental Exchange, headquartered in New York, New York. IHS Markit, Ltd. is an American-British information provider based in London, England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Cholla Khoury, Esq. OFFICE OF THE NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL Post Office Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, NM 87504-1508 Telephone: (505) 490-4052 E-mail: ckhoury@nmag.gov - and – David E. Kovel, Esq. Thomas Popejoy, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 250 Park Avenue, Suite 820 New York, NY 10177 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: DKovel@kmlllp.com TPopejoy@kmllp.com BARNES & NOBLE: Consolidated Retailers Putative Class Suit Nixed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended May 1, 2021, that the consolidated purported class action suit initiated by retailers of collegiate course materials or current or former college students, has been dismissed. Between January 22, 2020, and June 15, 2020, thirteen purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company, along with several publishers, another collegiate bookstore retailer, and an industry association. The plaintiffs are retailers of collegiate course materials or current or former college students. Although the specific allegations vary, the plaintiffs generally claim, on their own behalf and on behalf of the purported classes, that the Company and the other defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1), Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 2), Section 13(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act (15 U.S.C. Section 13(a)), and various state antitrust and unfair trade practices laws for alleged activities in connection with inclusive access and the sale of course materials to universities and their students. The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated these and other related cases in a consolidated proceeding before the Hon. Denise L. Cote of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 16, 2020, three named student plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, as did the retailer plaintiffs. The student plaintiffs and retailer plaintiffs each filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint on December 18, 2020, which all Defendants jointly moved to dismiss on January 22, 2021. On June 14, 2021, the Court ordered both cases dismissed with prejudice. Should Plaintiffs pursue an appeal, we intend to vigorously defend this matter. We are currently unable to estimate any potential losses. Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is one of the largest contract operators of physical and virtual bookstores for college and university campuses and K-12 institutions across the United States. The company is also one of the largest textbook wholesalers, inventory management hardware and software providers, and a leading provider of digital education solutions. The company is based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. BED BATH: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 29, 2021, that the defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated putative securities class action suit headed by Kavin Bakhda, is pending. A putative securities class action was filed on April 14, 2020 against the Company and three of our officers and/or directors (Mark Tritton, Mary Winston (the Company's former Interim Chief Executive Officer) and Robyn D'Elia (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer)) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey federal court"). The case, which is captioned Vitiello v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04240-MCA-MAH, asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities from October 2, 2019 through February 11, 2020. The Complaint alleges that certain of our disclosures about financial performance and certain other public statements during the putative class period were materially false or misleading. A similar putative securities class action, asserting the same claims on behalf of the same putative class against the same defendants, was filed on April 30, 2020. That case, captioned Kirkland v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05339-MCA-MAH, is also pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 14, 2020, the court consolidated the two cases and appointed Kavin Bakhda as lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Lead plaintiff and additional named plaintiff Richard Lipka filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on October 20, 2020, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities from September 4, 2019 through February 11, 2020. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on December 21, 2020. Bed Bath & Beyond Incorporated is an American chain of domestic merchandise retail stores. Bed Bath & Beyond operates many stores in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Bed Bath & Beyond was founded in 1971. It is currently part of the S&P 500 and Global 1200 Indices. The company is based in Union, New Jersey. BELMONT PEANUTS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Belmont Peanuts of Southampton, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Belmont Peanuts of Southampton, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05699 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Belmont Peanuts -- https://belmontpeanuts.com/ -- are an everyday luxury for peanut lovers who want exceptional taste, unrivaled variety, and a remarkably crisp and satisfying crunch.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com BIG SUGAR: Court Upholds Residents' Claims in Pollution Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has upheld negligence, strict liability, and medical monitoring claims brought by Florida residents in a lawsuit against conglomerate sugarcane growers who practice widespread sugarcane crop burning causing pollution, property damage and hazardous air quality, according to Hagens Berman and Berman Law Group of Florida. In his July 2, 2021 order, Judge Rodney Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss the proposed class action against Florida sugarcane growers, finding that the plaintiffs - central Florida residents who allege that their health and property are damaged by sugarcane burning - sufficiently plead claims for negligence, strict liability and medical monitoring. Defendants in the case are Florida Crystals Corporation, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperation of Florida, United States Sugar Corporation, Okeelanta Corporation, Osceola Farms Co., Sugarland Harvesting Co., Trucane Sugar Corporation, Independent Harvesting Inc. and J&J AH Products Inc. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Florida residents from the communities of Belle Glade, South Bay, Pahokee, Clewiston, Moore Haven, Canal Point and Indiantown, all of which sit in and among defendants' sugarcane fields. If you live in an area of Florida affected by toxic smoke and ash created by the sugar industry's sugarcane burning, find out your rights » "Today's victory is a showcase of the power of strength in numbers: these Florida residents are successfully taking on some of the biggest food corporations on the planet on behalf of their communities," said Steve Berman, co-founder and managing partner of Hagens Berman. "We look forward to continuing this courtroom fight for the rights of Floridians to clean air free of pollution, ash and black snow." In his order, Judge Smith found that the plaintiffs adequately alleged, based in part on air modeling done using publicly available data, that particulate matter and pollutants generated by sugarcane burning could be plausibly traced to each defendant: ". . . . when considered with the other allegations. . . . including the proximity of the burning to Plaintiffs' properties and the air modeling based on publicly available data, Plaintiffs have adequately pled standing as to harm from particulate matter and other pollutants." "The Florida legislature recently passed sweeping changes to Florida's Right to Farm Act that are aimed directly at stopping lawsuits like this, so we are gratified that Judge Smith noted in his opinion that the newly enacted law will not apply retroactively," said Matthew Moore, lead attorney for Florida's Berman Law Group. "One can only guess what industry was pushing for those changes, but, this lawsuit moves forward, and these communities can finally seek justice." The judge also upheld claims regarding the effects of defendants' burning on residents' property and health, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged exposure to greater than normal background levels of proven hazardous substances - thus significantly increasing their risk of developing lung cancer. The lawsuit seeks reimbursement for the Florida sugar industry's actions, which have damaged the health and property of local residents. It also requests that the defendants finance a court-supervised medical monitoring program, including annual screening and testing, to facilitate early diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. "Our law firm got its start in the 90s with a courtroom win against Big Tobacco in the largest settlement in world history," Berman said. "Once again, we plan to take on the nuisance of smoke, this time against Big Sugar." About Sugarcane Burning in Florida, and the Residents Suffering its Effects Ever year between October and March, Florida's sugar industry burns hundreds of thousands of acres of sugarcane as part of the harvest process. This burning, 284,615 acres in 2019 alone, emits large volumes of hazardous ash, particulate matter, and pollutants - often called "black snow" - that covers Glades residents' property, infiltrates their homes, and has been linked to serious health conditions, including respiratory conditions such as asthma and lung cancer. This black snow is known to travel for miles from the area of a burn, and discolors cars, homes, and office buildings. Many local homes must be pressure washed annually, and residents' quality of life is greatly diminished for more than half of each year. Among the pollutants released by defendants' burning are dioxins, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, ammonia, elemental carbon and organic carbon - many of which are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possible human carcinogens. Alternative, environmentally friendly harvesting methods (often called "green harvesting") not only exist but have been in use for more than three decades in many parts of the world - even resulting in greater yields from sugarcane fields in Brazil, where green harvesting has been mandated for over ten years. While defendants claim pre-harvest burning allows them to make more money, studies have demonstrated that green harvesting not only improves profits and yields after a brief adjustment period, but also better preserves soil for future crops. [GN] BRIDGESCAPE CAPITAL: Fabricant Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bridgescape Capital LLC, et al. The case is styled as Terry Fabricant, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bridgescape Capital LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:21-cv-05382 (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Bridgescape Capital -- https://www.bridgescapecapital.com/ -- specialize in business loans and commercial real estate loans.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com BROOKLYN, NY: Homeowners' Civil Rights Class Action Can Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Witt, writing for Brownstoner, reports that a federal court on June 24 ruled that three central Brooklyn homeowners of color can move forward with a class action civil rights lawsuit to recover their wealth lost through the city's Third Party Transfer program. The case stems from alleged illegal seizures of homes taken in "in rem" foreclosure proceedings under the Third Party Transfer program. The seizures were first uncovered and reported on in a lengthy series in Kings County Politics, now PoliticsNY. "Our clients, working families, had their only generational wealth, their homes, snatched from them by the City of New York under its Third Party Transfer Program. They were not given any compensation for these illegal and unconstitutional takings and even though the city tried to get our lawsuit tossed, the court has now acknowledged that our suit should continue to move forward," said Matthew L. Berman, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys with the law firm Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP. The city conducted the seizures under the Department of Housing, Preservation and Development's (HPD) TPT program. The program confiscates the entire property value of a home from the owner, even if the homeowner owed the city only a few thousand dollars in taxes or water and sewer charges. HPD would then hand the houses, and that excess value, for free or a nominal fee to development organizations of the administration's choosing. Two of these not-for-profit entities, Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund and BSDC Kings Covenant Housing Development Fund Company, are defendants in the suit. The three plaintiff homeowners are McConnell Dorce, Cecilia Jones and Sherlivia Thomas-Murchinson. "We have definitely been cheated and targeted through this program. The TPT program has affected my family in many ways. My family and our neighbors who should have remained shareholders in the building have lost real, personal and future assets and value in the millions of dollars, not even measuring the value of having a home for the long term. My now deceased mother worked, for close to 25 years, to ensure that our family would have long-term residency in an already existing affordable housing co-op. The city took that away with the stroke of a pen," said Thomas-Murchison. The plaintiffs aim to represent a class of property owners in the five boroughs who have lost their properties to the city without receiving compensation for their lost equity. The plaintiffs had to go to the U.S. Court of Appeals after the city challenged the plaintiffs' right to file a class-action lawsuit, arguing the matter should be one of state court jurisdiction. But the plaintiffs successfully argued it is a federal issue as the taking of their property falls under the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, requiring just compensation for the taking of a person's property. The properties seized by the city in its most recent batch of TPT transfers were collectively valued at more than $66 million at the time the suit was filed, and now are worth much more. Additionally, the suit seeks to recover the equity value of hundreds of additional properties seized by the city dating back to the early 1990s, with values potentially estimated in the hundreds of millions. A city Law Department spokesperson noted the ruling was procedural on a jurisdictional issue and the merits have not been heard. "The city believes the case is meritless and should be dismissed," the spokesperson said. [GN] CALIFORNIA: Court Dismisses Data Privacy Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- lawstreetmedia.com reports that software user plaintiffs will have a chance to re-plead some of their privacy claims against Microsoft Corporation after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a motion to dismiss ruling. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a claim for relief in its 13-page opinion. As previously reported, the plaintiffs, businesses who use Microsoft's software, filed suit alleging that the company shares customers' data without their consent. The class action complaint contends that subcontractors, developers, and third-parties, including Facebook, received the information from Microsoft despite privacy policies promising otherwise. They state claims for relief under the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and several Washington consumer protection and privacy laws. Judge Gonzalez Rogers noted at the outset of her analysis that "the precise nature of plaintiffs' claims lacks clarity." The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to allege facts enabling a "reasonable inference that they have been injured by Microsoft's conduct." The opinion called the allegations "generic," because they concluded, without the requisite support, that Microsoft improperly used and shared customer data. For similar and additional reasons, Judge Gonzalez Rogers determined that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim on the merits. The complaint suggested that Microsoft could be using customer data and subcontractors to develop new products, but put forward no facts suggesting that this actually happens, the opinion said. The plaintiffs have until July 21 to amend their pleading. They are represented by Bailey & Glasser LLP and The Golan Firm PLLC. Microsoft is represented by Cooley. [GN] CANADA: Ont. Appeal Court Upheld Denial of Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Thoburn, Esq., and David Elman, Esq., of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that in Cirillo v. Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the denial of certification of a proposed class action alleging a systemic failure by the Crown to hold timely bail hearings for accused persons. Background The proposed representative plaintiff, Robin Cirillo, was arrested in May 2017 following a domestic altercation with her ex-spouse. Cirillo was detained overnight for a bail hearing. The hearing was subsequently delayed for various reasons until the following day, when she was released on consent. Cirillo sought to certify a class action against the Crown in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of various Charter rights. The proposed class was defined as all persons who were arrested and detained for a period of more than 24 hours prior to any bail hearing "as a result of" five specified causes. The claim generally alleged that the Crown mismanaged the bail system, failed to commit adequate resources and promoted policies for prosecutors that had the effect of increasing the number of people in remand. Superior Court decision The motion judge denied certification on the basis that "(i) the pleadings did not disclose a cause of action in negligence as the claims are not justiciable; (ii) it is plain and obvious that the claims based on breach of fiduciary duty have no prospect of success; (iii) the appellant's claims for breach of Charter rights were not common to class members; and (iv) a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure for resolution of the class members' claims." With respect to the claims in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, the motion judge first concluded that there could be no cause of action against the Crown in its prosecutorial capacity, as the immunity of the Crown as prosecutor is "deeply entrenched" in law. The motion judge then considered the allegations aimed at the Crown's broader decisions related to staffing and resource allocation decisions. In that regard, the motion judge found that the impugned actions were "core policy decisions", which do not give rise to a private law duty of care. The motion judge also found that there were no common issues to be certified in terms of the breach of Charter claims because the analysis was so fact dependent. In particular, the motion judge highlighted the multiple potential causes of bail hearing delays and that those causes could be attributable to various non-parties. The Charter claims required an individualized assessment of each case and therefore, the proposed class action was not the preferable procedure. The motion judge also questioned whether there was an identifiable class. Court of Appeal On appeal, Cirillo argued that the claims in negligence were operational decisions, not policy choices, and thus the motion judge erred in finding that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action in negligence. Cirillo further argued that the motion judge erred in holding that there was no common issues for the Charter claims and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure in the circumstances. While the notice of appeal advanced arguments on the ruling on fiduciary duty, it appears this argument was ultimately abandoned. In its decision, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the certification requirement under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, was the same as the test applied under r. 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether a pleading should be struck out for failing to disclose a cause of action. The Court affirmed the motion judge's finding that it was plain and obvious that the claims "on their face" related to core policy decisions and could not form the basis of a negligence claim. The claims in negligence were determined to relate to "resource allocation for bail hearings and staffing" and clearly fell under the umbrella of policy decisions without a need for any further evidence on the issue. The Court noted that, in its view, the negligence claims would not satisfy the remaining criteria in ss. 5(1)(b) and (d) in any event, for the same reasons as the Charter claims. While the Court of Appeal accepted that the Charter claims could satisfy the cause of action criterion (and chose not to address their viability), the Court affirmed the motion judge's finding that they were not certifiable because they did not meet the identifiable class, common issue or preferability criteria. The Court found that the plaintiff, by defining the class as those who were detained "as a result of" certain specified causes, had brought a causation element into the class definition that was "inherently merit-based". Accordingly, the class definition was incapable of objective determination. In terms of commonality, the Court of Appeal articulated that there was no single course of conduct giving rise to the alleged Charter breaches and thus the proposed common issues required individualized and particularized assessments of each case. The Court distinguished the claim from other cases where courts had certified claims based on alleged Charter breaches. The Court found similarity in the analysis of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Thorburn v. B.C., 2013 BCCA 480, where the representative plaintiff had been arrested at a protest and strip-searched in accordance with a specific policy. The Court noted that an unreasonable policy alone did not necessarily translate into a Charter claim capable of common determination or a conclusion that a class proceeding would be a preferable procedure. Takeaways This decision adds helpful clarity to the operational/policy distinction in determining whether claims in negligence can be advanced. Moreover, the decision is noteworthy in highlighting that even a general finding of "systemic wrong" may not avoid the need for protracted individualized inquiries in to the circumstances of each class member. In such cases, a class action may not be the preferable procedure, if any true common issues exist at all. Finally, this case highlights the potential pitfalls of attempting to create an expansive claim through a broadly defined putative class. [GN] CANOO INC: Kahn Swick Investigates Securities Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Esq., a partner at the law firm of Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF"), announces that KSF has commenced an investigation into Canoo Inc. (NasdaqGS: GOEV, GOEVW) f/k/a Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. IV. On or about December 21, 2020, Canoo Holdings became a public entity via merger with Hennessy Capital, with the surviving entity named "Canoo." On March 29, 2021, post-market, the Company announced its 4Q2020 and full year financial results, disclosing significant changes to its business model, previously touted by the Company to investors, deemphasizing its engineering services business and no longer focusing on its subscription-based business. Thereafter, the Company and certain of its executives were sued in a securities class action lawsuit, charging them with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws, which remains ongoing. KSF's investigation is focusing on whether Canoo's officers and/or directors breached their fiduciary duties to Canoo's shareholders or otherwise violated state or federal laws. If you have information that would assist KSF in its investigation, or have been a long-term holder of Canoo shares and would like to discuss your legal rights, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-goev/ to learn more. About Kahn Swick Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients - including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. [GN] CHAMPLAIN TOWERS: Faces 2nd Class Action Over Building Collapse --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Batchelor, writing for Local10.com, reports that a lawsuit was filed over the weekend by a resident who survived the June 24 partial building collapse at Champlain Towers South in Surfside. The lawsuit was filed on June 26 on behalf of Steve Rosenthal, who lived in Unit 705. It is the second known lawsuit to be filed after the collapse. According to the complaint, the association knew or should have known "the entire structure was deteriorating and becoming susceptible to catastrophic loss by collapse." Rosenthal is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a jury trial. "The tragedy of Champlain Towers South should not be allowed to be repeated," Rosenthal's attorney Bob McKee said in a statement to ABC News. "It is not a solitary freak event. "The conditions relating to its collapse exist in many of our hi-rise concrete buildings. Change to effectuate more frequent inspection, with teeth in compelling immediate complete and timely repair must be effectuated. Otherwise, we will have other events such as the horrible failure and collapse we have all witnessed at Champlain Towers South. The last thing we want to see is more harm, in either slow water damaged building health damage, or in instantaneous building failure." The lawsuit states that the association had a duty to hire "competent contractors, inspectors, engineers, and other appropriate persons and corporations to perform its required maintenance and repair duties if it was not performing the activities itself." Rosenthal's lawsuit comes days after a $5 million class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of another resident, Manuel Drezner and "on behalf of all others similarly situated." That complaint also alleges that the condominium association failed to "secure and safeguard the lives and property" of those who live at the building. Officials, on their end, have been cautious to point fingers at anyone at this time, saying the primary focus needs to be on rescuing any possible survivors and recovering bodies from the rubble. They say a final determination on the cause of the collapse with take an extended period of time. [GN] CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 30 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against Churchill Capital Corp IV ("Churchill Capital" or "the Company") (NYSE: CCIV) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between January 11, 2021 and February 22, 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 here 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. Lucid Motors ("Lucid") was not ready to produce vehicles by the spring of 2021. Lucid projected 2021 production of just 557 vehicles, despite the 6,000 vehicle production target touted in the period before its merger with Churchill Capital. 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 Churchill Capital, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN] CLEANSPARK INC: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. on June 29 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against CLSK alleging that CLSK failed to disclose to investors: (1) that the Company had overstated its customer and contract figures; (2) that several of the Company's recent acquisitions involved undisclosed related party transactions; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, CLSK's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a CLSK investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. The GEO Group, Inc. (NYSE: GEO) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was filed against GEO alleging that GEO made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO Group maintained woefully ineffective COVID-19 response procedures; (ii) those inadequate procedures subjected residents of the Company's halfway houses to significant health risks; (iii) accordingly, the Company was vulnerable to significant financial and/or reputational harm; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are a GEO investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. Repro Med Systems, Inc. (NasdaqGS: KRMD) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was filed against KRMD alleging that KRMD failed to disclose to investors that: (1) starting in January 2020, KORU ramped up the use of allowances, including growth rebates, to retain key customers and to incentivize growth; (2) as the rebates accrued, the Company's net sales were reasonably likely to decline; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, KRMD's positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you are a KRMD investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. Romeo Power, Inc. (NYSE: RMO) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was filed against RMO alleging that RMO was suffering from an acute shortage of high quality battery cells, which are key raw materials for RMO's battery packs and modules, due to supply constraints. The Complaint further alleges that contrary to Defendants' representations, (i) RMO had only two battery cell suppliers, not four, (ii) the future potential risks that Defendants warned of concerning supply disruption or shortage had already occurred and were already negatively affecting RMO's business, operations and prospects, (iii) RMO did not have the battery cell inventory to accommodate end-user demand and ramp up production in 2021, (iv) RMO's supply constraint was a material hindrance to Romeo's revenue growth, and (v) RMO's supply chain for battery cells was not hedged, but in fact, was totally at risk and beholden to just two battery cell suppliers and the spot market for their 2021 inventory, and that RMO failed to disclose these material facts to investors. If you are a RMO investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. Contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. Phone: 516-493-9780 Facsimile: 516-280-7376 Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN] COLORADO: Inmates' Class Suit Against Governor Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Charles Ashby that a class action lawsuit filed against Gov. Jared Polis by inmates last year can go forward, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled. In the lawsuit filed in Denver District Court in May 2020, five current or former inmates of the Colorado Department of Corrections filed suit against the governor as the chief executive of the state alleging that the state failed to protect medically vulnerable prisoners from the threat of the coronavirus. Over the course of the pandemic, numerous inmates at several correctional facilities have contracted the virus, some even dying. A Denver district judge, however, tossed out the lawsuit on grounds that the governor was not a proper defendant and that the separations of power doctrine in the Colorado Constitution doesn't give the courts jurisdiction to hear such a case. The Polis administration argued at the district court level that the governor should not be the subject of such a suit because he does not manage the day-to-day operations of any of the Department of Corrections facilities. A three-judge panel of the appeals court, however, rejected those grounds, saying Polis is the proper defendant because he ultimately is in charge of all state agencies, and the courts do have jurisdiction to decide a constitutional claim. The trial court made its ruling in February, about five weeks before the Colorado Supreme Court decided the matter of when a governor can be named in such class action suits filed against the state. In that case, which was appealed to the high court by the Polis administration, the state's seven justices unanimously ruled in a suit involving transgender inmates that a governor oversees the state's executive agencies, and therefore is a proper defendant. "Because the governor 'has final authority to order the executive directors of all state agencies to commence or cease any action on behalf of the state' . . . the governor had appropriately been named as a defendant in this type of action on many occasions," Justice Melissa Hart wrote. "As these cases demonstrate, because he is the state's 'supreme executive' with ultimate authority over the executive agencies under his control, the governor is an appropriate defendant in an action that seeks to 'enjoin or mandate enforcement of a statute, regulation, ordinance or policy.' " Both cases have been remanded back to district court. [GN] CONTEXTLOGIC INC: IPO Documents "Misleading," Asmat Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTO ASMAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTEXTLOGIC INC., PIOTR SZULCZEWSKI, RAJAT BAHRI, BRETT JUST, JULIE BRADLEY, ARI EMANUEL, JOE LONSDALE, TANZEEN SYED, STEPHANIE TILENIUS, HANS TUNG, and JACQUELINE RESES, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-05015 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the ContextLogic's business, operational and compliance policies in order to artificially inflate prices of ContextLogic securities between December 16, 2020 and May 12, 2021. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) ContextLogic's Q4 2020 monthly active users (MAUs) had declined materially and were not then growing; (ii) accordingly, ContextLogic had materially overstated the company's business metrics and financial prospects; and (iii) as a result, the company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. The truth made known to the public after ContextLogic announced its Q4 2020 financial results and Q1 2021 financial results. ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.83 per share, or 10%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021. Further, stock price fell $3.36 per share, or 29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021, says the suit. ContextLogic Inc. is a provider of e-commerce services, with principal executive offices located at One Sansome Street 40th Floor, San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 405-7190 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and – Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and – Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com CST CONSULTANTS: Suit May Help Quebecers Recoup Enrolment Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Frederic Tomesco, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that a recently approved class-action lawsuit could allow thousands of Quebecers to recoup most of the fees they paid for setting up savings plans aimed at financing their children's education. Montrealer Qing Wang filed the suit in 2018 after being charged $11,720 in fees when he sought to terminate his children's registered education savings plans and transfer them to a bank. The fees represented 59 per cent of the $20,000 he had contributed to the RESPs. "I decided to leave the RESP because I realized it was a trap and I wanted to stop further losses," Wang told the Montreal Gazette in a statement issued through his lawyer. "It seemed salespeople were more focused on maximizing sales than on preserving capital and generating respectable returns. Their focus is volume. Once somebody chooses a group RESP, you're stuck with the charges and you're stuck with the plan for 18 years." Wang's case rests on a Quebec law known as Regulation No. 15, which governs scholarship or educational plan prospectuses. It caps the fees charged for each plan at $200, including the commissions of the distributor and its salesmen. In a judgment issued this spring, Quebec Superior Court Judge Martin Sheehan authorized the class action to proceed against six Canadian distributors of group RESPs. The defendants include Quebec City-based Kaleido Growth Inc., which was previously known as Universitas, and five Ontario-based firms: CST Consultants Inc., Children's Education Funds Inc., Global RESP Corp., Heritage Education Funds Inc. and Knowledge First Financial Inc. Based on publicly available data, the case could "easily affect several hundred thousand people in Quebec," representing damages of "several hundred million dollars," Wang's Montreal-based lawyer, Joey Zukran, said in an interview. "The class action highlights the sheer amount of fees that people can be paying," said Gail Henderson, an associate dean and professor at Queen's University's law faculty who closely follows RESPs. Allegations of excessive fees made against CST and other RESP providers in Quebec are "unfounded" and "without merit," Peter Lewis, chief revenue officer at CST, said in an emailed statement. "This case targets six RESP plan providers in Quebec and disputes an industry-wide, accepted fee structure that has been in place at least since 1979 and approved by regulators," Lewis added. Kaleido Growth also denies the allegations "and we intend to challenge them," Patrick Pedneault, a spokesperson, said via email. Knowledge First says all its RESP plans are offered by prospectus and are reviewed annually by provincial and federal governing bodies such as Quebec's Autorite des marches financiers, the Ontario Securities Commission and the Canadian Securities Administrators. "While we cannot fully comment on active litigation, we welcome the proceedings and have the utmost respect for the court's process as well as the securities laws that govern our industry and the country as a whole," Jacques Naud, Knowledge First's senior vice-president of sales and distribution, said in an emailed statement. Wang and his family immigrated to Montreal from China in February 2015, legal documents show. Three days after arriving in the city, he set up group RESPs with CST for his two children and agreed to make monthly contributions. It was his landlord, a scholarship plan agent for CST, who introduced him to the RESP concept and sold him on the idea of investing, according to the documents. Wang made the decision after a 60-minute meeting. [GN] CVS CAREMARK: Fails to Properly Pay Pharmacists, Esfandiari Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- MASOUMEH ESFANDIARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION (CVS Pharmacy) and DOES 1- 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV24168 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay wages upon termination, failure to furnish itemized wage statements, unfair competition, discrimination, retaliation, failure to take corrective action, and wrongful termination. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt pharmacist in Los Angeles County, California from March 12, 2006 until August 12, 2020. CVS Caremark Corporation is an American healthcare company, headquartered in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley C. Gage, Esq. Terry M. Goldberg, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GOLDBERG & GAGE 23002 Victory Boulevard Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 340-9252 Facsimile: (818) 340-9088 E-mail: Bgage@goldbergandgage.com - and – Jeffrey Spencer, Esq. THE SPENCER LAW FIRM 2 Venture, Suite 220 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 240-8595 Facsimile: (949) 240-8515 E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net CVS PHARMACY: Cleared of US$121M Charges in Fraud Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Randall Brater, Esq., Mattie Gibbons, Esq. and D. Jacques Smith, Esq., of Arent Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that on June 23, 2021, CVS Pharmacy Inc. was cleared of claims of overcharging drug purchasers by more than $121 million for general drugs. This verdict comes after a week-long trial in the Northern District of California beginning June 7, 2021. CVS Pharmacy Cleared of $121M Charges in Class Action Fraud Suit On June 23, 2021, CVS Pharmacy Inc. was cleared of claims of overcharging drug purchasers by more than $121 million for general drugs. This verdict comes after a week-long trial in the Northern District of California beginning June 7, 2021. The jury deliberated for less than a day and unanimously cleared CVS of the alleged violations of six state consumer protection statutes. A group of 11 single-state classes of insured patients brought this consumer putative class lawsuit alleging nineteen causes of action for fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violation of consumer protection laws in twelve states and the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs alleged that CVS misrepresented the "usual and customary" prices of certain generic drugs by failing to report the lower prices CVS charged to members of its "Health Savings Pass" program to third-party insurance providers and pharmacy benefit managers. Pharmacy benefit manager executives testified that their contracts with CVS did not require CVS to report discounts under the Health Savings Pass program. The case is Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation, Case Number 4:15-cv-03504, in the Northern District of California. Cayman Islands-Based Fund Charged With $106M Fraud On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the Southern District of New York against a Cayman Islands-based mutual fund and its founders, alleging that they moved $102 million into shell companies for personal use. The complaint also alleges that the founders of the fund refused to honor redemption demands of investors of approximately $106 million, and instead misappropriated those assets into an inaccessible brokerage account. According to the complaint, the individual defendants and the fund misappropriated investor funds through fraudulent conduct, including creating shell companies, diverting assets to the shell companies in uncollateralized loan transactions violating the requirements of the fund prospectus, and submitting false statements of material fact to investors to cover their alleged misconduct. The individual defendants and the fund were charged with four counts of wire fraud and violations of the Securities and Exchange Act for the alleged conduct. As the individual exercising control over the fund, one defendant was also charged with a claim for control-persons liability. The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Abarbanel et al. and the complaint can be found here. Televangelist's COVID Cure Claims Cost $156K in Restitution On June 23, 2021, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt announced a consent judgment against a televangelist and his company Morningside Church Productions Inc. requiring up to $156,000 in restitution. The consent judgment resolves claims that the defendant marketed "Silver Solution" as a cure for Covid-19 in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, which prohibits false or misleading claims in connection with the offer or sale of merchandise. In March of 2020, the Missouri Attorney General's Office filed suit against Bakker and Morningside Church Productions, after seeing an advertisement from Bakker's show claiming that the "Silver Solution" product was able to cure Covid-19. Under the consent judgment, Bakker cannot sell or advertise "Silver Solution" as a way to diagnose, treat, or cure any disease or illness. Bakker will pay up to $115,766 to Missouri residents who purchased the product, and if less than that sum is paid, the difference between the refunds and $90,000 must be paid to the Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund. Between all required payments, the total will be up to $156,000. [GN] DR. REDDY'S: Alleged Overarching Conspiracy Related Suits Underway ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend three Overarching Conspiracy alleged class action suits. In June 2018, three class action complaints were filed in the MDL-2724 by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Resellers Plaintiffs and End Payor Plaintiffs classes. All three complaints allege conspiracies in restraint of trade in violation of Sections 1 of the Sherman Act, and violations of thirty-one State antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment seeking injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named defendants on a joint and several basis. They allege an "overarching conspiracy" among the named defendants involving fifteen drugs and, with slight variations, name approximately twenty-five generic pharmaceutical manufacturers including the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. The drug-specific allegations against the Company's U.S. subsidiary involve two of the fifteen drugs, meprobamate and zoledronic acid. Plaintiffs also allege that the Company's U.S. subsidiary (as well as all other manufacturers named) were part of a larger "overarching conspiracy" as to all of the drugs named in the complaints. The complaint alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and violations of thirty-one States' antitrust statutes and consumer protection statutes, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs against all named defendants on a joint and several basis. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India. DR. REDDY'S: Awaits Final Approval of Namenda Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company awaits final court approval of the settlement agreement in the class action suit related to Namenda(R). In August 2015, Sergeants Benevolent Assoc. Health & Welfare Fund filed suit against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Sergeants alleged that certain parties, including the Company, violated federal antitrust laws as a consequence of having settled patent litigation related to the Alzheimer's drug Namenda(R) (memantine) tablets during a period from about 2009 until 2010. Sergeants seeks to represent a class of "end payor" purchasers of Namenda(R) tablets (i.e., insurers, other third-party payors and consumers). Sergeants seeks damages based upon an allegation made in the complaint that the defendants entered into patent settlements regarding Namenda(R) tablets for the purpose of delaying generic competition and facilitating the brand innovator's attempt to shift sales from the original immediate release product to the more recently introduced extended release product. On August 23, 2020, the Company and certain other defendants entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement calls for the dismissal with prejudice of the claims brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the putative class, in exchange for the payment of U.S.$0.4. The Company paid that amount into escrow. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on October 5, 2020. The settlement agreement is contingent upon final court approval. The settlement agreement explicitly disclaims any liability or wrongdoing. Following the settlement agreement, the Company recognized such amount in the income statement for the three months ended September 30, 2020. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India. DR. REDDY'S: Canadian Consumer Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by an individual consumer in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada. On June 3, 2020, a Class Action Statement of Claim was filed by an individual consumer in Federal Court in Toronto, Canada, against the Company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries and 52 other generic drug companies. The Statement of Claim alleges an industry-wide, overarching conspiracy to violate Sections 45 and 46 of the Canadian Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada. The action is brought on behalf of a class of all persons, from January 1, 2012 to the present, who purchased generic drugs in the private sector. The Statement of Claim states that it seeks damages against all defendants on a joint and several basis, attorney's fees and costs of investigation and prosecution. An Amended Statement of Claim was served on the Company's U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries on January 15, 2021 and adds an additional 20 generic drug companies. The Amended Statement of Claim also removes the identification of defendant companies with conspiracy allegations regarding specific generic drugs and alleges a conspiracy to allocate the North America Market as to all generic drugs in Canada. The Company believes that the asserted claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations. Dr. Reddy's said, "Any liability that may arise on account of this claim is unascertainable. Accordingly, no provision was made in these consolidated financial statements of the Company." Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India. DR. REDDY'S: Divalproex Antitrust Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend the Divalproex Antitrust Class Action. Since November 17, 2016, certain class action complaints on behalf of Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs and End Payor Plaintiffs classes were filed against the Company's U.S. subsidiary, Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., and a number of other pharmaceutical defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania alleging that the Company's U.S. subsidiary and the other named defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and to allocate bids and customers in the sale of divalproex ER tablets in the United States. The actions allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, and of state consumer protection and antitrust laws, and asserts claims of unjust enrichment, under a total of thirty-one States and the District of Columbia. The actions seek injunctive relief and recovery of treble damages, punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, on a joint and several basis, on behalf of the plaintiff classes. The Company denies any wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend against these class action claims. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India. DR. REDDY'S: Securities Class Suit in New Jersey Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2020, that the company continues to defend a securities class action suit pending before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 25, 2017, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company's Co-Chairman, its Chief Operating Officer, and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., were also subsequently named as defendants in the case. The operative complaint alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements or omissions in its public filings, in violation of U.S. federal securities laws, and that the Company's share price dropped and its investors were affected. On May 9, 2018, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 25, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and, on July 25, 2018, a further reply in support of the motion to dismiss was filed by the Company. In August 2018, oral argument on the motion to dismiss was heard by the Court. On March 21, 2019, the District Court issued its decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to that decision, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs claims with respect to seventeen out of the twenty-two alleged misstatements and omissions. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited operates as an integrated pharmaceutical company worldwide. It operates through three segments: Global Generics, Pharmaceutical Services and Active Ingredients (PSAI), and Proprietary Products. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited was founded in 1984 and is headquartered in Hyderabad, India. DRAFTKINGS INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of August 31 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DraftKings, Inc. (NASDAQ: DKNG) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings publicly traded securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 31, 2021 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the Company's merger with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming. Citing "conversations with multiple former employees, a review of SEC and international filings, and inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50% of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned." Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 2021. DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming company in the U.S. It operates through two segments, Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. The Company provides users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities. It is also involved in the design, development, and licensing of sports betting and casino gaming platform software for online and retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products. The Company distributes its product offerings through various channels, including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. On April 23, 2020, DEAC consummated transactions contemplated by a Business Combination Agreement (the "Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as amended on April 7, 2020, and, in connection therewith, (i) DEAC merged with and into the Company, whereby the Company survived the merger and became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company changed its name to "DraftKings Inc.," (iii) the Company acquired DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Old DK"), by way of a merger, and (iv) the Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited ("SBTech"). Upon Case 1:21-cv-05739 Document 1 Filed 07/02/21 Page 2 of 34 3 consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company. 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) SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker, Melissa Fortunato, or Marion Passmore by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you. About Bragar Eagel Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York, California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] DRAFTKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Reminds of August 31 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against DraftKings Inc. f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("DEAC", "DraftKings", or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DKNG) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-05739, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased DraftKings securities during the Class Period, you have until August 31, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. DraftKings operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming company in the U.S. It operates through two segments, Business-to-Consumer and Business-to-Business. The Company provides users with daily sports, sports betting, and iGaming opportunities. It is also involved in the design, development, and licensing of sports betting and casino gaming platform software for online and retail sportsbook, and casino gaming products. The Company distributes its product offerings through various channels, including traditional websites, direct app downloads, and direct-to-consumer digital platforms. DraftKings was incorporated in Nevada as DEAC NV Merger Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of its legal predecessor, DEAC, a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. On April 23, 2020, DEAC consummated transactions contemplated by a Business Combination Agreement (the "Business Combination") dated December 22, 2019, as amended on April 7, 2020, and, in connection therewith, (i) DEAC merged with and into the Company, whereby the Company survived the merger and became the successor issuer to DEAC, (ii) the Company changed its name to "DraftKings Inc.," (iii) the Company acquired DraftKings Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Old DK"), by way of a merger, and (iv) the Company acquired all of the issued and outstanding share capital of SBTech (Global) Limited ("SBTech"). Upon consummation of the preceding transactions, Old DK and SBTech became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company. 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) SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly, DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increased the Company's regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions; (iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's revenues were, in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v) accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination were overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the Company's merger with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming. Citing "conversations with multiple former employees, a review of Securities and Exchange Commission and international filings, and inspection of back-end infrastructure at illicit international gaming websites," Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and ongoing record of operating in black markets," estimating that 50% of SBTech's revenue is from markets where gambling is banned." Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share on June 15, 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. [GN] ENSITE USA: Faces Albert Suit Over Failure to Pay Inspectors' OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- NORRIS ALBERT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENSITE USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00418-DJH (W.D. Ky., June 28, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the Defendant seeking to recover untimely wage compensation, unpaid overtime, and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an Electrical Inspector from in or around April 29, 2016 through October 15, 2018 in Kentucky, Ohio and Texas. The Plaintiff claims that despite regularly working more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant did not pay him and other similarly situated inspectors 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. Instead, the Defendant paid them their daily rate only regardless of the number of hours they worked in a week. In addition, the Defendant willfully failed to record all of the time that the Plaintiff and other inspectors have worked for the benefits of the Defendant, the Plaintiff says. Ensite USA, Inc. provides pipeline management services to companies in the oil and energy industry across the U.S. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and – Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty St., 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 300-0375 Fax: (212) 481-1333 EQUIFAX INC: 11th Cir. Affirms Class Action Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lang Jr., Esq., of Carlton Fields, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on June 3, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, with one caveat, the Northern District of Georgia's approval of the settlement of the consolidated class actions against Equifax Inc. and its affiliates arising from the 2017 data privacy breach. The district court described the parties' settlement as "the largest and most comprehensive recovery in a data breach case in U.S. history by several orders of magnitude." Notably, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the attorneys general for 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico all supported the settlement. The one caveat the panel announced was that the incentive awards for the class representatives that were approved by the district court ran afoul of Johnson v. NPAS Solutions LLC. The panel otherwise affirmed in all other respects and remanded solely for the incentive awards to be vacated. The Eleventh Circuit's decision resolved five consolidated appeals by six objectors. The various objectors raised a slew of issues. Among them, the objectors challenged Article III jurisdiction as wells as the district court's decisions approving the class action settlement, certifying the settlement class, and awarding attorneys' fees and expenses. The panel rejected and dispensed with all of these arguments in turn. The affirmance and the panel's resolution of those issues have been widely reported. Less widely reported, however, are the panel's interesting discussions of the objectors' challenges to the requirements the district court imposed on them for filing objections, the district court's process for adopting its final order, and the appeal bonds imposed by the district court. Requirements for Objections Objector Davis challenged certain administrative requirements the district court placed on class members who wished to object: * Each objection had to include the objector's name and address; the objector's personal signature; the grounds for the objection; previous objections in recent class actions; and dates on which the objector was available to be deposed. * In addition, if the objector had counsel who intended to speak at the fairness hearing, the objection needed to include the legal and factual basis for the objection and the evidence to be offered at the hearing. * And, if the objector had counsel who sought compensation from anyone other than the objector, the objection needed to include counsel's previous objections in recent class actions, counsel's experience in class action litigation, and information on the fees sought. Objector Davis argued that these requirements deterred objections and limited the ability of objectors to be heard. The panel rejected these contentions and concluded that Objector Davis failed to establish an abuse of discretion. Specifically, the panel explained as follows: The District Court explicitly imposed the requirements outlined here, not to deter objections or for some arbitrary purpose, but for the express purpose of avoiding a "chaotic process" in evaluating the objections. The District Court said it found these requirements help "expose objections that are lawyer-driven and filed with ulterior motives." The District Court was well within its broad discretion to impose the requirements for these stated purposes. "Ghostwritten" Order The panel then turned to an insightful discussion of so-called ghostwritten orders. Because the proposed final order submitted by plaintiffs' class counsel was not included in the record on appeal, the panel assumed that the district court adopted the proposed order in whole without changes: "The Objectors ask us to assume that the District Court adopted the proposed order in full, and Plaintiffs and Equifax don't ask us to do otherwise. For the purposes of our review, we therefore assume the District Court adopted the proposed order verbatim." Objectors Frank and West asserted that the district court erred in adopting a proposed order "ghostwritten" by plaintiffs' counsel. The panel acknowledged that the Eleventh Circuit has "repeatedly condemned the ghostwriting of judicial orders by litigants." "When such a practice is permitted, the drafting party has an 'overwhelming' 'temptation to overreach and exaggerate.'" The panel likewise acknowledged that the "quality of judicial decisionmaking suffers when a judge delegates the drafting of orders to a party" and that "the writing process requires a judge to wrestle with the difficult issues before him and thereby leads to stronger, sounder judicial rulings." Notwithstanding, the Eleventh Circuit has not adopted a per se rule that disallows this practice. In this case, the panel determined that "the process by which the District Court adopted the proposed order was not fundamentally unfair." It explained: Mr. Frank and Mr. West both had ample opportunity to present their arguments. Both lodged detailed written objections to the settlement agreement. Both appeared through counsel at the final hearing and presented arguments. And contrary to their assertions, they did have an opportunity to respond to the order. After the District Court adopted the proposed order, Mr. West moved to amend it. And it's not as if these opportunities to present their arguments were hollow procedures; the District Court heard from Mr. Frank and Mr. West at the fairness hearing, considered their written objections, and rejected their objections on the merits. Ultimately, the District Court granted Mr. West's motion to amend the order over Plaintiffs' objections and issued a revised order based on West's arguments. Ultimately, the panel emphasized that the district court "reached a firm decision before ever directing Plaintiffs' counsel to draft a proposed order" and "instructed that the order reach a particular result and discuss specific points." Appeal Bonds Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7, the district court imposed appeal bonds of $2,000 on each objector. Rule 7 states that, "[i]n a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal." Objectors Cochran and Frank asserted that the district court erred in requiring appeal bonds. The panel rejected this assertion. It pointed out that the "[t]he plain text of Rule 7 is clear" and "says a district court may impose an appeal bond 'in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal.'" Although it acknowledged, without deciding, that some of the reasons given by the district court for imposing the appeal bond might be irrelevant under Rule 7, the district court did make the finding that matters: Although the District Court considered other factors that may not be relevant, we need not ultimately decide this issue of relevance under Rule 7 because the record indicates the District Court independently imposed the appeal bonds based on a proper factor. Specifically, the District Court found that the "substantial risk" of nonpayment "warrant[ed] an appeal bond." The District Court did not therefore abuse its discretion when it imposed the appeal bonds based on its finding that there was a "substantial risk that the costs of appeal will not be paid unless a bond is required." In re Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 20-10249 (11th Cir. June 3, 2021). [GN] EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Rouse Files FCRA Suit in D. Utah ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services. The case is styled as Camryn Rouse, Ryan Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Equifax Information Services, Case No. 4:21-cv-00073-DN (D. Utah, July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Equifax Information Services LLC -- https://www.equifax.com/personal/ -- provides data solutions. The Company offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and analytical solutions.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David James McGlothlin, Esq. Ryan Lee McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 900-1288 Email: david@kazlg.com ryan@kazlg.com - and - Theron D. Morrison, Esq. MORRISON LAW GROUP 290 25th St., Ste. 102 Ogden, UT 84401 Phone: (801) 392-9324 Email: therondmorrison@gmail.com EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Shen May Replead Securities Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as BO SHEN, et al., Plaintiffs v. EXELA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-0691-D (N.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss but also permits the Plaintiffs to replead. In this putative class action alleging claims for securities fraud and control person liability under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5"), 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder, the Court must decide whether the Plaintiffs have adequately pleaded a claim under the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. Concluding that they have not, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss but also permits the Plaintiffs to replead. Lead plaintiffs Insur Shamgunov and Elena Shamgunova (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this putative class action against Defendants Exela Technologies, Inc. ("Exela"), Ronald Cogburn ("Cogburn"), James G. Reynolds ("Reynolds"), and Par Chadha ("Chadha"). The Plaintiffs allege in their amended class action complaint ("complaint") that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Cogburn, Reynolds, and Chadha are liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiffs sue "on behalf of persons or entities who or which purchased or acquired Exela securities between March 16, 2018 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the 'Class Period') and who were damaged thereby." Exela is a global business process automation provider that combines industry-specific and multi-industry enterprise software and solutions worldwide. It was formed in July 2017 when two companies, SourceHOV2 and Novitex Holding, Inc. ("Novitex"), merged into a special purpose acquisition company, Quinpario Acquisition Corp. ("Quinpario"), which then became Exela (the "Business Combination"). As a result of the preliminary merger and Business Combination, Quinpario (later re-named Exela) became the parent company of SourceHOV and Novitex. Prior to the Business Combination, SourceHOV bought out the minority interest of one of SourceHOV's minority shareholders, Manichaean Capital, LLC ("Manichaean"), at a price of $1,600 per share. In September 2017, Manichaean, suspecting that it had received inadequate consideration for its minority interest, petitioned the Delaware Court of Chancery ("Chancery Court") for an appraisal determination ("Appraisal Action"). The Chancery Court heard testimony in June 2019 and found on Jan. 30, 2020, that, as of the closing date, the fair value of SourceHOV was $4,591.00 per share. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the Chancery Court's judgment on Jan. 22, 2021, after the instant lawsuit was filed. See SourceHOV Holdings, Inc. v. Manichaean Cap., LLC, 246 A.3d 139, 2021 WL 225817, at *1 (Del. Jan. 22, 2021) (unpublished table decision). According to the Plaintiffs' complaint, the truth about Exela's financial condition--including previously-concealed risks that had partially materialized--was revealed to the market through a series of disclosures between Nov. 8, 2018, and March 16, 2020, causing Exela's stock to fall from $6.24 per share on the day before the first alleged Class Period drop on Nov. 8, 2018, to just $0.15 per share on March 18, 2020, the day after the last day in the Class Period. On March 17, 2020, Exela filed a Form 8-K in which it acknowledged that liability relating to the Appraisal Action should have been recorded in September 2017 at the fair value of the shares tendered, but was not. Accordingly, in early 2020 Exela re-issued its financial statements for 2017, 2018, and the interim periods through Sept. 30, 2019, to record liabilities ranging from $37.8 to $43.1 million for the periods ending Dec. 31, 2017, 2018, and 2019. On March 23, 2020, this putative class action was filed against Exela; Cogburn, who served as the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of Exela and a member of Exela's Board of Directors throughout the Class period; Reynolds, who served as Exela's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") throughout the Class Period; and Chadha, who was Chairman of Exela's Board of Directors and was Co-Chariman of the Board and principal stockholder of SourceHOV prior to the Business Combination. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are liable for securities fraud under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on four categories of misstatements: (1) first, that Exela's financial statements for the annual periods ending 2017, 2018, and three quarterly statements in 2019 were admittedly materially false and misleading as a result of the Defendants' omission of a known litigation liability, i.e., the Appraisal Action; (2) second, that the Defendants falsely assured the market as to the predictability of Exela's revenue, stating that the Company had 90% visibility due to recurring contracts when, in fact, the Defendants never had such visibility because at least 20% of Exela's revenues came from unpredictable postage revenue; (3) third, that the Defendants misleadingly touted adjusted EBITDA figures ("Adjusted EBITDA"), engaging in "accounting shenanigans" that added back supposedly non-routine expenses when, in fact, the expenses were routine, recurring expenses, improperly added back into EBITDA, with the effect of misleadingly showing higher profits; and (4) fourth, that the Defendants misleadingly touted Exela's supposed success in expanding customer margins by implementing automation and digital transformation, only to reveal later that there was no chance to expand margins for a substantial number of Exela's customers. The Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' action. The Court heard oral argument. Senior District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater notes that because the complaint alleges fraud, the Plaintiffs must plead the elements of their claim with the heightened particularity required by Rule 9(b), citing Coates v. Heartland Wireless Commc'ns, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 910, 914 (N.D. Tex. 1998) (Fitzwater, J.). Judge Fitzwater holds that to the extent that the Plaintiffs base their claim on allegations that Exela did not adequately disclose the existence of the Appraisal Action, or that Exela's representations regarding the Appraisal Action were false or misleading, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead a claim. He adds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded a securities fraud claim based on the statement that Exela was unable to estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from the Appraisal Action. As a threshold matter, it is notable that the complaint does not actually plead that Exela's statement that it was unable to estimate any loss or range of loss was false or misleading, Judge Fitzwater states. Nor does the complaint allege any facts regarding the liability estimates of Exela's expert in the Appraisal Action. Regardless, and more important, Judge Fitzwater holds, the mere fact that Exela's expert estimated Exela's liability does not permit the Court to draw the reasonable inference that, at the time of the relevant SEC filings, any Defendant was able to estimate any loss or range of loss that might actually arise from the Appraisal Action, such that the Defendants' statement that they could not provide this estimate was false or misleading. In fact, the complaint alleges that Exela "disagreed with its own expert over which revenue projections to use in the DCF analysis and ultimately separated from its expert with respect to SourceHOV's fair value," Judge Fitzwater finds. In other words, although Exela's expert may have provided a liability estimate, the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that any Defendant agreed that the estimate was accurate or that any defendant was able to independently predict whether, and in what amount, Exela would ultimately be held liable in the Appraisal Action. The Court, therefore, concludes that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead that Exela's representations regarding the Appraisal Action were false or misleading. To the extent the Plaintiffs allege that Exela violated the securities laws by "failing to record liability for the shares at issue in the Appraisal Litigation since 2017," and that, in doing so, Exela "misrepresented its financial condition," the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss on the ground that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged scienter. Judge Fitzwater opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead that, prior to the issuance of Exela's Form 8-K on March 17, 2020, any Defendant knew, or was severely reckless in not knowing, that Exela's accounting practices with respect to the Appraisal Action were in error. Accordingly, the Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claim to the extent it is based on alleged misstatements and omissions regarding the Appraisal Action. To the extent the Plaintiffs base their Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claim on the Defendants' statements regarding Exela's plan to expand customer margins by implementing automation and digital transformation, the Court holds that these statements fall within the PSLRA's safe harbor provision. Judge Fitzwater finds that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that either Reynolds or Cogburn actually knew at the time Exela's future plans to pursue its business process automation platforms within its existing customer base were described to investors that a significant number of Exela's customers (i.e., enough to make the representations false or misleading) had no path to automation or digital transformation. That Cogburn "tracked and reported the Company's progress in expanding margins," is insufficient of itself to allege "actual knowledge" under the PSLRA. Accordingly, because the Plaintiffs do not point to any other allegations that, at the time of the alleged misrepresentations, the Defendant in question had actual knowledge that Exela would not be able to expand customer margins by implementing automation and digital transformation, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim based on forward-looking statements. The Court also grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss to the extent the Plaintiffs base their Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 claim on the Defendants' visibility or other forward-looking statements. Judge Fitzwater holds that none of the Plaintiffs' alleged facts is sufficient to permit the reasonable inference that Cogburn knew or should have known during or before the March 2019 earnings call, that Exela did not have 90% revenue visibility or that approximately 20% of Exela's revenue for 2018 and 2019 came from completely unpredictable postage and postage handling. Judge Fitzwater adds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a violation of Regulation G because the Defendants' disclosures relating to Adjusted EBITDA were not false or misleading. They clearly explained how they calculated this non-GAAP metric and adequately warned investors about its limitations. Even if the Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Exela's Adjusted EBITDA figures were false or misleading, the Court would still grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim based on Exela's Adjusted EBITDA figures because the Plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded a strong inference of scienter. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly plead a primary violation under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, the Court also dismisses the Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim against Reynolds, Cogburn, and Chadha. Having granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court must decide whether to allow the Plaintiffs to replead. The Court's approach in cases decided under the PSLRA has been to allow plaintiffs at least one opportunity to replead after the Court has filed an opinion identifying defects in a complaint. Additionally, at oral argument, the Plaintiffs' counsel stated that, in preparing for the hearing, she had discovered a "massive amount" of insider stock sales by Chadha. The Court does not suggest that the information the Plaintiffs' counsel has in mind will make a difference if included in a second amended complaint. But the availability of such information does inform the Court's decision whether to permit the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Accordingly, the Court grant the Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Judge Fitzwater ruled that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted. The Court grants the Plaintiffs 42 days from the date of this memorandum opinion and order to file a second amended complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 24, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3aw3s43m from Leagle.com. FITLIFE BRANDS: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitlife Brands, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Fitlife Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05697 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. FitLife Brands -- https://fitlifebrands.com/ -- is a leader in sports nutrition & bodybuilding supplements featuring extraordinary gains in healthy lean muscle.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com FREEDOM CREDIT: Violates Repossession Notice in UCC, Ibeleme Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARTINS IBELEME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 210602461 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Pennsylvania's Uniform Commercial Code by failing to provide consumers with proper notice of repossession and disposition of collateral. The complaint asserts that the Defendant did not act in a commercially reasonable manner toward the Plaintiff and the Class. Freedom Credit Union is a chartered credit union with a principal place of business at 626 Jacksonville Rd, Ste 250, Warminster, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. Andrew M. Milz, Esq. Jody Thomas Lopez-Jacobs FLITTER MILZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Hingston Sues Over Drop in Share Price -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HINGSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS, INC. and DAVID L. LUCCHINO, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-11040 (D. Mass., June 22, 2021) alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the class acquired Frequency's common stock between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Frequency has conducted multiple clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant of which was a Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019. Shortly thereafter, the Defendants learned 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. Despite 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, the suit says. Seizing on the Company's artificially high share price, in April 2020 Defendant Lucchino began selling his shares of Frequency, initially dumping between 10,000 and 20,000 shares—earning hundreds of thousands of dollars—each month and then increasing the number of sales to 60,000 to 80,000 shares—earning millions of dollars—each month as Frequency's deadline for releasing the disastrous Phase 2a results drew near. All told, Lucchino sold over 350,000 shares and earned over $10.5 million. Upon revelation of the disastrous results before the market opened on March 23, 2021, Frequency's shares fell from $36.29 to $7.99, a 78% drop, and a loss of approximately $955 million in the Company's market capitalization, added the suit. Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company focuses on developing small molecule therapeutics that activates progenitor cells within the body to treat degenerative diseases. It offers FX-322, a potential disease modifying therapy designed to regenerate auditory hair cells to improve hearing function. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Daryl Andrews, Esq. ANDREWS DEVALERIO LLP P.O. Box 67101 Chestnut Hill, MA 02467 Telephone: (617) 999-6473 E-mail: daryl@andrewsdevalerio.com glen@andrewsdevalerio.com -and- Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com -and- Peretz Bronstein, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Klein Law Firm Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Klein Law Firm on June 29 disclosed that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: FREQ) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 2, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in FREQ: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17213&from=5 Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. NEWS - FREQ NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. 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. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Frequency Therapeutics you have until August 2, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Frequency Therapeutics securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the FREQ lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: J. Klein, Esq. Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 jk@kleinstocklaw.com Telephone: (212) 616-4899 Fax: (347) 558-9665 www.kleinstocklaw.com [GN] FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Vincent Wong Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Vincent Wong on June 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has commenced in the on behalf of investors who purchased Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency Therapeutics") (NASDAQ: FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021. If you suffered a loss, contact us at the link below. There is no cost or obligation to you. https://www.wongesq.com/pslra-1/frequency-therapeutics-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17219&wire=5 Allegations against FREQ include that the Company 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. 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. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Vincent Wong, Esq. 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com [GN] GOLDMAN SACHS: Bryan Cave Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- John Bielema, Esq., Michael Carey, Esq., Heather Goldman, Esq., Jonathan Potts, Esq., and Eric Rieder, Esq., of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, in an article for JDSupra, report that in a closely followed case concerning class certification in securities fraud class actions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that the generic nature of a company's statements should be considered in determining whether such statements had an impact on the company's stock price. The Court also held that in opposing class certification, a securities fraud defendant bears the burden of showing that an alleged misstatement had no effect on the company's stock price. The decision came in Goldman Sachs v. Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, a securities fraud action which arose out of the 2008 financial crisis. In 2010, Goldman Sachs shareholders brought an action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the Southern District of New York, alleging that Goldman Sachs maintained an inflated stock price between 2006 and 2010 by making material misstatements about its conflict of interest policies and practices. After Goldman Sachs unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the case, plaintiffs moved to certify a class under the fraud-on-the-market theory previously adopted by the Court in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988). Under that theory, securities fraud plaintiffs seeking to certify a class do not need to demonstrate individual reliance on a defendant's misstatements, based on the presumption that the market price reflected consideration of all material information. Once a plaintiff makes a showing that he or she is entitled to the Basic presumption, a defendant can rebut the presumption by demonstrating that the alleged misstatements had no effect on the company's stock price. Thus, the ability of a defendant company or individual to rebut a claim of stock-price impact is a crucial issue for class certification. After two visits to the Second Circuit on the issue of class certification -- the District Court first certified the class, the Second Circuit remanded for further consideration of Goldman Sachs' evidence, the District Court certified the class again, and the Second Circuit affirmed - the case reached the Supreme Court. At issue were company statements such as "integrity and honesty are at the heart of our business." Goldman Sachs contended these kinds of statements were too generic to affect the stock price. And it argued that in affirming class certification and rejecting defendants' lack-of-price-impact arguments, the Second Circuit erred in two ways: (1) by ignoring the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations in determining whether they affected the stock price, and (2) by placing on the defendant the burden of persuasion, rather than the lesser burden of producing some evidence, to prove a lack of price impact at the class certification stage. On the second issue, the burden of proof, the Court rejected Goldman Sachs' argument, and held that the defendant bore the burden of persuasion on that point, though it emphasized that the allocation of burden will rarely be determinative of the outcome of a class certification motion. On the first issue, generic statements, the Court did not adopt a sweeping new legal principle, but instead noted that in briefing and arguing the appeal, "the parties' dispute has largely evaporated." Thus, it said, plaintiffs did not contend that courts at the class certification stage were barred from considering the generic nature of an alleged misstatement, but rather plaintiffs agreed that the generic nature of a statement "often will be important evidence of price impact," since general statements are presumably less likely to influence stock buyers than more specific ones. The Court further noted that both parties agreed that courts could consider expert testimony and use their common sense in deciding whether a generic statement had a price impact. In effect, the Court said, there was nothing much on this issue for it to decide. But, the Court said, it was not clear from the Second Circuit's opinions whether it had considered the generic nature of the statements in holding that there was sufficient price impact to support class certification under the fraud-on-the-market theory. It therefore remanded the case, directing 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 issue." The uncertainty about what the appeals court considered arises from the fact that the generic nature of statements may also be relevant to the issue of whether the statements are material, as is required for liability under Section 10(b). The Court had held in an earlier case, Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013), that plaintiffs seeking to invoke the fraud-on-the-market theory for class certification did not need to show materiality, which they did not have to prove until trial on the merits of a case. That remains the law, but the Court in Goldman Sachs made clear that just because the generic nature of the statements would be relevant to the merits issue of materiality, that does not mean a court at the class certification stage should ignore the generic nature of the statements in determining whether they affected the company's stock price. The majority opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett elicited two separate dissents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision to send the case back to the Second Circuit, contending that a fair reading of the Second Circuit's opinion showed that it did consider the generic nature of the statements in reaching its decision. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court's ruling on the burden of proof issue, contending 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." [GN] GOODRX HOLDINGS: Lifshitz Law Firm Announces Class Action Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. on June 28 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against GDRX alleging that at the time of the IPO, unbeknownst to investors, Amazon.com, Inc. was developing and would soon introduce its own online and mobile prescription medication ordering and fulfillment service that would directly compete with GDRX and that given GDRX's knowledge of Amazon's intention to enter the online pharmaceutical business, their statements in the Registration Statement and during the Class Period about GDRX's competitive position were materially false and/or misleading when made. If you are an GDRX investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. Lordstown Motors Corp. (NasdaqGS: RIDE) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was filed against Lordstown alleging that the Company misled investors by misrepresenting and omitting to disclose that: (i) the Company's purported pre-orders were non-binding; (ii) many of the would-be customers who made these purported pre-orders lacked the means to make such purchases and/or would not have credible demand for Lordstown's Endurance; (iii) Lordstown is not and has not been "on track" to commence production of the Endurance in September 2021; (iv) the first test run of the Endurance led to the vehicle bursting into flames within 10 minutes; and (v) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are a RIDE investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. Tricada, Inc. (NasdaqGS: TCDA) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint has been filed against Tricada alleging that Tricada made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Tricida's NDA for veverimer was materially deficient; (ii) accordingly, it was foreseeably likely that the FDA would not accept the NDA for veverimer; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you are an TCDA investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. XL Fleet Corp. (NYSE: XL) Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. announces that a class action complaint was filed against XL alleging that, XL failed to disclose to investors: (i) that XL Fleet's salespeople were pressured to inflate their sales pipelines to boost the Company's reported sales and backlog; (ii) that at least 18 of the 33 customers that XL featured were inactive and had not placed an order since 2019; (iii) that XL's technology had been materially overstated and offered only 5% to 10% of fleet savings; (iv) that XL lacks the supply chain and engineers to roll out new products on the announced timelines; and (v) 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 are a XL investor, and would like additional information about our investigation, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516)493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING.(C) 2021 Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C., 1190 Broadway, Hewlett, New York 11557, Tel: (516)493-9780. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. Contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Lifshitz Law Firm, P.C. Phone: 516-493-9780 Facsimile: 516-280-7376 Email: jml@jlclasslaw.com [GN] GOOGLE LLC: US Judge Affirms Voice Assistant Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Anusuya Lahiri at Reuters reports that Federal judge Beth Labson Freeman agreed to prosecute Alphabet Inc's (NASDAQ: GOOG) (NASDAQ: GOOGL) Google for allegedly recording private conversations of people who accidentally triggered its voice-activated Voice Assistant on their smartphones, Reuters reports. The plaintiffs for the proposed class-action lawsuit challenged Google's right to use their conversations for targeted advertising when Google Assistant misperceived what they said as hot words, known as "false accept." Google failed to sufficiently explain to users that it will use recordings made in the absence of manual activation or a hot word utterance, Freeman acknowledged. Google defended, saying plaintiffs failed to show that they were harmed or broke any contractual guarantees. Google never promised that the Assistant would activate when plaintiffs intend it to, the company added. The proposed lawsuit sought unspecified damages. [GN] HAIN CELESTIAL: Smith Consumer Suit Moved From W.D. Mo. to E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KATESHA SMITH and MIRANDA FOGLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-00129, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of New York assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-03708-JS-AYS to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California's Unfair Competition Law, the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and other state consumer protection statutes by advertising, labeling and marketing of its Earth's Best Organics baby food products as organic, safe and healthy for children when the products contain dangerous levels of heavy metals. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a manufacturer of baby food products, with its principal place of business in Lake Success, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tim Dollar, Esq. DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER & HERSHEWE, L.C. 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105-5194 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: timd@dollar-law.com HILCORP ENERGY: Underpays Gas Royalties, Carl Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- ANNE CARL and ANDERSON WHITE, as Co-Trustees of the CARL/WHITE TRUST, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HILCORP ENERGY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02133 (S.D. Tex., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of lease. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of underpaying royalties owed to the Plaintiff. Under the gas royalty clause of their lease agreement, the Defendant is required to pay royalties on gas, including casinghead gas, used off the premises or off lease use of gas (OLUG). The Defendant concealed the systematic underpayment of royalty from the Plaintiff and Class members by falsely representing on the check stubs provided monthly to the Plaintiff and the Class that the Defendant was paying royalty on the full volume and value of production from their wells, when in fact, it was not. As a result of the Defendant's alleged breaches, the Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged through underpayment of the actual royalty amounts due under the leases. Hilcorp Energy Company is a privately held exploration and production company based in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. Allison B. Waters, Esq. SHARP LAW, LLP 4820 West 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com awaters@midwest-law.com HILL TO GROVE: Tavarez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hill to Grove, Inc. The case is styled as Victoriano Tavarez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hill to Grove, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-05700 (S.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hill to Grove, Inc. doing business as Hope and Harmony Farms, formerly known as Royal Oak Peanuts -- https://hopeandharmonyfarms.com/ -- is a small gourmet peanut company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mars Khaimov, Esq. 10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (917) 915-7415 Email: marskhaimovlaw@gmail.com HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY: Bensalem Sues Over Forced PIP Requirements --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM LODGING ASSOCIATES LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, LLC, SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC. d/b/a INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP and IHG OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02882 (E.D. Pa., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, declaratory judgment, accounting, and violation of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent, and anticompetitive practices of requiring their franchisees to use certain mandated vendors and suppliers for the purchase of virtually all goods and services necessary to maintain and to run a hotel. The Defendants' forced exclusive use of certain chosen vendors and suppliers imposes well above-market procurement costs on HHF franchisees which include, but are not limited to, those associated with its onerous and exorbitant Property Improvement Plan (PIP). Franchisees are forced to frequently undertake expensive renovations, remodeling and construction as part of the PIP, and in so doing manipulates and shortens the warranty periods on mandated products the franchisees must purchase, then the Defendants disingenuously use this to justify PIP requirements as purportedly necessary to meet brand standards when, in reality, the Defendants' sole purpose is to maximize their kickbacks and unjustifiably run up costs on their franchisees in bad faith, says the suit. Bensalem Lodging Associates LLC is a franchisee that owns and operates a hotel located at 3327 Street Road in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, LLC is a franchising affiliate of Intercontinental Hotels Group (IHG), headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Six Continents Hotels, Inc., doing business as Intercontinental Hotels Group, is a hotel company, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. IHG Owners Association, Inc. is an association that represents the owners and operators of IHG, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth B. McFarland, Esq. Bryan P. Winter, Esq. WINTER MCFARLAND, LLC 205 McFarland Circle North Tuscaloosa, AL 35406 Telephone: (205) 650-1400 Facsimile: (205) 650-1401 E-mail: ruth@winmclaw.com bwinter@winmclaw.com HOME POINT: Frank R. Cruz Law Reminds of August 20 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on June 29 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Home Point Capital Inc. ("Home Point" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: HMPT) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 2021 initial public offering ("IPO"). Home Point investors have until August 20, 2021, to file a lead plaintiff motion. In January 2021, Home Point conducted its IPO, selling 7.25 million shares of common stock for $13.00 per share. On May 6, 2021, Home Point announced financial results for the first quarter of 2021, reporting revenue of $324.2 million, which missed consensus estimates by $41.72 million. On this news, Home Point's stock price fell $1.66, or 17.7%, to close at $7.72 per share on May 6, 2021, significantly below the IPO price. The complaint filed alleges that 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) Home Point's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would increase the Company's expenses dramatically; (2) as a result of rising interest rates in 2021, the mortgage industry was anticipating decreased gain-on-sale margins industry-wide, and Home Point would be to the same competitive pressures; (3) accordingly, Home Point had overstated its business and financial prospects; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Home Point common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no later than August 20, 2021, to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you purchased Home Point securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. Contacts: The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007 fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN] HOME POINT: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 20 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of Home Point Capital Inc. (NASDAQ:HMPT) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Home Point Capital's January 29, 2021 initial public offering ("IPO") have until August 20, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit. The case is captioned Windemuth v. Home Point Capital Inc., No. 21-cv-11457, and is assigned to Judge Laurie J. Michelson of the Eastern District of Michigan. The Home Point Capital class action lawsuit charges Home Point Capital and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit, please visit our website by clicking here or contact J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 20, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Home Point Capital class action lawsuit alleges that Home Point Capital's offering documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Home Point Capital's aggressive expansion of its broker partners would dramatically increase Home Point Capital's expenses; (ii) the mortgage industry was anticipating industry-wide decreased gain-on-sale margins as a result of rising interest rates in 2021 and Home Point Capital would be subject to the same competitive pressures; (iii) accordingly, Home Point Capital had overstated its business and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, Home Point Capital's offering documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. On May 6, 2021, Home Point Capital issued a press release announcing Home Point Capital's financial results for the first quarter of 2021. Among other results, Home Point Capital reported revenue of $324.2 million, missing consensus estimates by $41.72 million. On this news, Home Point Capital's stock price fell nearly 18%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Home Point Capital common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Home Point Capital's IPO to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Home Point Capital 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 Home Point Capital class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Home Point Capital class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 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] HUMM KOMBUCHA: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINGO PASCUAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HUMM KOMBUCHA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05472-GHW (June 22, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, www.hummkombucha.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit adds. HUMM KOMBUCHA LLC produces non-alcoholic beverages. The Company offers a range of kambucha drinks, as well as apparels. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Vehicle Battery Defects -------------------------------------------------------------- On June 28, 2021, a new class action lawsuit was filed in California court against Hyundai Motor America. The plaintiff, Mr. Siamak Kermani, is represented by Wirtz Law APC, O'Connor Law Group, and Reallaw APC. The class action is on behalf of consumers throughout California, claiming dangerous battery systems in their electric Hyundai vehicles, caused by an electrical short inside the battery cell. The defective batteries were produced by LG Energy Solutions, and are at risk of catching on fire while charging, parked, and/or driving. There is currently no fix available. When Plaintiff and other potential Class Members have complained about the defective and dangerous battery system, HMA refused to remedy the issue and informed individual potential Class Members that there was no true fix. Instead, potential Class Members, including Plaintiff: (a) were provided with software "updates" that did nothing to repair the defect; (b) were instructed to "have the battery's state of charge limit lowered to 80% to mitigate the risk of fire;" and (c) were advised not to park their vehicles indoors without lowering the charge limit. Based on the manner and timing in which recalls came into existence, HMA knew of this problem, its pervasiveness, and lack of a proper fix for a significant amount of time before the first recall was issued on or about October 13, 2020, and while Class Vehicles were being sold and leased to the general public. Kermani v. Hyundai Motor America Pl. Compl. 6:24. Vehicles in the Class Action "Class Vehicles" refer to the following: * 2019-2020 Hyundai Kona Electric * 2020 Hyundai Ioniq Electric The class action seeks buy back refunds for the vehicles under California's Lemon Law. Attorney Richard Wirtz commented, "Unfortunately, this is the second auto manufacturer in less than a year to sell electric cars with defective battery systems that can catch on fire to California consumers. The rush to market with new technology needs to be tempered by the safety of our drivers and passengers. If auto makers ignore safety and cannot promptly repair dangerously defective cars to get them off the roads, then California's Lemon Law is there to protect California buyers to get their money back." About Co-Counsel Mr. Wirtz, Mr. Michael Hassen, and Mr. Mark O'Connor are experienced attorneys with decades of experience between them. They specialize in consumer protection matters and have successfully prosecuted scores of cases similar to this one. Contact Information Wirtz Law APC 4370 La Jolla Village Drive #800 San Diego, California 92122 (833) 469-5366 https://www.wirtzlaw.com [GN] INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $1.4 Million Fees ------------------------------------------------------------------ Law360 reports that a small New York firm that represented ex-IBM workers in a lawsuit that ascended to the nation's highest court before settling for $4.75 million asked a New York federal court for $1.4 million in fees for their work on the "unusual" case. [GN] JAMES KERR: Mathis Files FLSA Suit in N.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against James Kerr, et a1. The case is styled as Spencer Mathis, Jadan Fenstermaker, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employess v. James Kerr, Julie Kerr, 5280 Solutions LLC, Dash Logistics LLC, Accelroute LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00270-GKF-SH (N.D. Okla., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 5280 Solutions is a Microsoft® Gold Certified Partner and a recognized leader in both the business automation and student loan industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb M Salmon, Esq. AIZENMAN LAW GROUP 5800 E. Skelly Drive, Ste. 575 Tulsa, OK 74135 Phone: (918) 426-4878 Fax: (918) 513-6860 Email: caleb@aizenmanlaw.com JUUL LABS: Agrees to Pay North Carolina to Settle Vaping Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Kaplan, writing for The New York Times, reports that Juul Labs has agreed to pay North Carolina $40 million to settle the first of a spate of lawsuits brought by states and localities claiming the e-cigarette company's marketing practices fueled widespread addiction to nicotine among young people and created a new public health problem. The settlement, which was announced on June 28, allows the company to avoid a jury trial this summer as the Food and Drug Administration is deciding whether its vaping products can stay on the market. The company had urgently sought the settlement, but the deal removes just one of numerous legal actions pending against it. Thirteen other states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, as well as the District of Columbia, have filed similar lawsuits. The central claim in each case is that Juul knew, or should have known, that it was hooking teenagers on pods that contained high levels of nicotine. Nearly 2,000 other cases filed by cities, counties, school districts and other plaintiffs in federal courts have been combined into multi-district litigation overseen by a single federal judge, similar to what's been done with cases against prescription opioid makers, distributors and retailers. Beyond the litigation, a group of 39 attorneys general from both Republican- and Democratic-led states, led by Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, have been investigating Juul's marketing and sales practices for over a year. "For years, Juul targeted young people, including teens, with highly addictive e-cigarettes," Josh Stein, the North Carolina attorney general, who sued the company in May 2019, said in a statement announcing the settlement. "It lit the spark and fanned the flames of a vaping epidemic among our children -- one that you can see in any high school in North Carolina." But the company was able to reach the settlement deal without admitting to the allegations, one of its chief goals in the face of the other lawsuits and the F.D.A. review. In Juul's statement, Joshua Raffel, a company spokesman, said: "This settlement is consistent with our ongoing effort to reset our company and its relationship with our stakeholders, as we continue to combat underage usage and advance the opportunity for harm reduction for adult smokers." E-cigarettes and other vaping products were initially conceived to be a less harmful alternative to combustible cigarettes, which are linked to the deaths of about 480,000 people in the United States each year. But Juul's sleek high-tech-looking device, advertised in its 2015 launch with young, hip-looking people on billboards and in social media, quickly caught on with teenagers and young adults who had never smoked. Over the next few years, e-cigarette use among high-school students began to soar, and in 2018, the F.D.A. commissioner declared an epidemic of teen vaping in the United States. Although e-cigarettes do not contain the carcinogens that burning tobacco creates, scientists and public health officials worry about their potential health effects on young people. Some research shows nicotine could impair the developing brain, for example, and addiction to it could lead users to move to regular cigarettes, some people fear. Juul had urgently sought a settlement in the North Carolina trial, which was set for July 12 and would have put Juul in court, dealing with testimony from parents and children, while the F.D.A. was deciding its fate, which must be done by early September. The money, which will be paid out over six years, will be used to fund programs that will help people quit e-cigarettes, prevent e-cigarette addiction and research e-cigarettes. The settlement also requires Juul to sell its products from behind the counter in North Carolina stores, and to use third-party age verification systems for online sales. The order commits Juul to sending young "mystery shoppers" to 1,000 stores each year, to check whether they are selling to minors. It also bans the company from using models younger than 35 in advertisements and states that no advertisements should be posted near schools. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, who teaches product liability, said the settlement bodes well for the other states suing Juul. "This opens a similar possibility to every state going forward," he said. "North Carolina has been in the vanguard and deserves some credit. I think this has huge financial and other implications." Mr. Tobias said he was not surprised that Juul did not admit to wrongdoing. "That almost always happens in these kinds of settlements — that's a standard clause," he said. Juul has not begun other serious settlement talks, however, because none of the other 2,600 lawsuits against the company have been scheduled to begin during 2021. The company is waiting for the F.D.A. ruling before deciding how to move forward. If the F.D.A. will permit Juul's products to stay on the market to help adult smokers quit, industry executives believe the company's negotiating stance will be strengthened. But settling with numerous plaintiffs would be expensive. Juul has seen sales plummet during the past year, analysts say. The company is private so does not disclose its financial data. Marc Scheineson, a lawyer with Alston & Bird, whose practice includes small tobacco companies, called the $40 million in the North Carolina settlement "a relatively small sum to pay to avoid mounting legal fees and the plaintiff pile-on syndrome." He also noted that most of the steps Juul agreed to take in the consent degree, such as not advertising near schools and behind-the-counter sales, are actions that it has already taken in an effort to gain public favor. Mr. Scheineson also said that electronic nicotine delivery products, such as Juul, "still have an important public health use by adults as a proven effective tool to quit smoking more harmful cigarettes." Juul faces other legal threats, too. The Federal Trade Commission is suing Juul, along with the big tobacco company Altria and related parties, seeking to unwind the 2018 deal that gave Altria 35 percent of Juul. Altria, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes, paid $12.8 billion for that stake, but it has since written down the value of the investment to $1.5 billion. The commission says that the two companies entered into a series of agreements, including Altria's investment, that eliminated competition in violation of federal antitrust laws. The F.T.C. also claims that Altria and Juul started as competitors in the e-cigarette market, but that as Juul became more popular, Altria dealt with the threat by taking its own Mark Ten e-cigarette off the market in exchange for a share of Juul's profits. Both Altria and Juul have denied the charges. The multi-district federal litigation in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California consolidates cases on three tracks: personal injury, which includes plaintiffs claiming addiction, lung injuries and other health problems; a consumer class action track, claiming that individuals paid too much for a product that addicted them; and a government entity track, consisting of school districts and counties seeking monetary reimbursement for vaping-relating damages. Investors in Juul, like Altria and other entities, are also involved. Depositions have begun, and the first case is scheduled to go to trial in February 2022. Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called the North Carolina settlement a positive step that puts Juul under the same marketing restrictions that already apply to other tobacco companies, with some added sales restrictions and protection against the use of social influencers. "But," he added, "these measures will not solve the youth e-cigarette crisis. Nothing short of F.D.A. action will reverse the youth e-cigarette epidemic." [GN] JUUL LABS: Faces School District Suit Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------------- RITTMAN EXEMPTED VILLAGE 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-05009 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 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. Rittman Exempted Village School District is a unified school district with its offices located at 100 Saurer Street in Rittman, 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: Ferndale School Sues Over E-Cigarette Campaign to Youth ------------------------------------------------------------------ FERNDALE 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-05006 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 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. Ferndale Public Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 871 Pinecrest in Ferndale, 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 Ill., School Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202, 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-05011 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 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. Plainfield Community Consolidated School District No. 202 is a unified school district with its offices located at 15732 Howard St. in Plainfield, 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: School District Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis ------------------------------------------------------------- LIBERTY LOCAL 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-05012 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 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. Liberty Local Schools is a unified school district with its offices located at 4115 Shady Road in Youngstown, 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 LEMON CREEK: Defendants Appeal Fuel Spill Class Action Decision --------------------------------------------------------------- John Boivin at thestar.com reports that it's one step forward, one step back for people involved in a class action lawsuit over a spill of jet fuel in the Slocan River in 2013. Defendants in the case have appealed Judge D.M. Masuhara's May 21st ruling that the lawsuit could go ahead. He handed down his decision after changing some of the specifics of the lawsuit, to reflect orders received from an appeal of his first ruling on the case. The lawsuit stems from the July 2013 spill of 35,000 litres of jet fuel into Lemon Creek by a transport driver making a delivery to a firefighting operation. The spill forced thousands of people up to 40 kilometres downstream in the Slocan Valley to evacuate the area. The spill also killed fish and forced residents to get alternate sources of drinking water for themselves and livestock for days. Residents who were affected by the spill launched the suit for damages. It's the second time the case will go to the Appeal Court of BC, even before it goes to trial. Masuhara, the chambers judge reviewing the certification, ruled in 2017 the class action could go ahead - the first time such a class action environmental lawsuit had been approved in British Columbia. But the defendants - the helicopter company, fuel-delivery company, the truck driver, and provincial government - appealed that ruling. The BC Court of Appeal found issue with some of the particulars of the issues to be decided (called the "common issues"), and sent the matter back to Masuhara for a re-determination according to the higher court's reasons. After implementing the changes outlined by the Court of Appeal, Masuhara re-certified the lawsuit as a class action. The proponents filed an appeal to that, but without any details, on June 21. There's also no date set yet for the appellant court to hear the case. [GN] LOANCARE LLC: Gross Sues Over Deceptive Collection Letters ---------------------------------------------------------- The case, CHRISTOPHER GROSS, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOANCARE LLC and CIT BANK NA d/b/a ONEWEST BANK FSB, a subsidiary of CIT GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05589 (S.D.N.Y., June 28, 2021) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff has an alleged loan, specifically a home equity line of credit (HELOC) in the principal amount of $100,000.00, which he applied with IndyMac Bank on or about August 22, 2007. The alleged HELOC was purportedly assigned to OneWest Bank FSB, a division of Defendant CIT, for servicing. On or about April 14, 2017, the Plaintiff has sent a request to Defendant CIT under Section 6 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act a specific itemized information about the accounting and servicing of the loan. Defendant CIT responded to the Plaintiff's request on or about April 28, 2017, by forwarding copies of a breakdown of corporate advance fees on the account, original HELOC agreements, loan history, customer account activity statement, various invoices, appraisal, appraisal report, a letter on OneWest Bank Mortgage Servicing's letterhead dated August 3, 2015, an undated letter from Defendant CIT, and a Settlement Statement, that is the last correspondence received by Plaintiff from Defendant CIT, says the suit. Subsequently, Defendant LoanCare sent the Plaintiff letters dated March 21, 2018, March 29, 2018, June 4, 2018, October 7, 2019 and June 29, 2020. The Plaintiff asserts that the letters he received from Defendant LoanCare were false because the letters were presented to deceive and conceal the nature and scope of the remaining attributes of the Plaintiff's transaction, in which IndyMac was named as lender but who probably did not fulfill the attributes of a lender. Defendant LoanCare purportedly failed to forward any documents that would establish the chain of title to allow any purported holder in due course to establish title. Furthermore, all of the responses from LoanCare and the lack of response from CIT are violations of the Real Estate Settlements Procedures Act (RESPA) 12 U.S.C. Section 2607. The Defendants allegedly collect monies from homeowners who were labeled as mortgages without establishing the chain of title and without proving their authority or right to collect monies from any underlying obligation that was falsely implied to be the foundation for enforcement said mortgages. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant LoanCare's alleged deceptive and abusive acts ad practices of collecting a debt, the Plaintiff was damaged and suffered stress and anxiety. The Defendants are debt collectors. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abel L. Pierre, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ABEL L. PIERRE 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, NY 10005 Tel: (212) 766-3323 Fax: (212) 766-3322 E-mail: abel@apierrelaw.com LOS MARIACHIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gutierrez Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA GUTIERREZ; GLADYS SELENE RAMON; MADELYN RAMON; ARTURO LARA MUNOZ; and LIVIA GUTIERREZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOS MARIACHIS, LLC; FOOD TRUCKS, LLC; LOREN AGUIRRE, and JOSEPH FLAMINI, Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-00855 (D. Conn., June 23, 2021) alleges Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as kitchen staffs. LOS MARIACHIS, LLC owns and operates a restaurant business. [BN] The Plaintiffs were represented by: Todd Steigman, Esq. William G. Madsen, Esq. MADSEN PRESTLEY & PARENTEAU, LLC 402 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 246-2466 Facsimile: (860) 246-1794 E-mail:tsteigman@mppjustice.com wmadsen@mppjustice.com -and- Louis Pechman, Esq. Laura Rodriguez, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com LOUISIANA STATE: Three New Plaintiffs Added to Title IX Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Focus Daily News reports that an amended complaint filed on June 25 in the groundbreaking class action Title IX lawsuit, Owens, et al. v. Louisiana State University, et al., named Louisiana State University head football coach, Ed Orgeron, as a defendant in addition to LSU, the Tiger Athletic Foundation, and other LSU officials. The lawsuit alleges that Orgeron, along with the previously named defendants, conspired to "stymie LSU's entire Title IX policy" in order to protect "certain athletes from viable Title IX claims." The amended complaint describes multiple instances where Orgeron ignored complaints of harassment or assault committed by one of his players, "John Doe." On one occasion, plaintiff Ashlyn Robertson's then-boyfriend told Orgeron that Robertson was raped by one of his football players. Orgeron told him not to be upset because "everybody's girlfriend sleeps with other people" and did not report the rape to the LSU Title IX office as is required by University policy and federal guidance. On another occasion, the suit alleges, an elderly female security guard reported sexual harassment by Doe. Orgeron told her it was "just a joke." Allegations Against LSU Faculty Member The complaint also adds allegations against an LSU faculty member who repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted a graduate student, as well as allegations against another LSU football player who was allowed to transfer after only a three-week disciplinary suspension. The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief against LSU and Tiger Athletic Foundation. They are being represented by Michigan-based Title IX law firms Temperance Legal Group and Elizabeth Abdnour Law, as well as New Orleans-based Katie Lasky Law. Ashlyn Robertson, a plaintiff added in the amended complaint, stated, "I'm doing this to protect our daughters and future women of LSU. There has to be change within the University and its policies. If I would have known other women had been assaulted by the same person I was, I wouldn't have felt so alone, and I would have had the courage to come forward back in 2016." Elizabeth Abdnour, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "We are proud to represent these brave women in their fight for justice. Holding the responsible individuals and institutions accountable for their failures is the first step towards creating a safer LSU for everyone." Katie Lasky, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, said, "With the filing of this amended complaint, we applaud and stand with the additional women who have bravely come forward to tell their personal and difficult stories and hold LSU accountable for its years of putting money over the well-being of students." [GN] M1 HOLDINGS INC: Blind Users Can't Access Web Site, Pascual Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINGO PASCUAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M1 HOLDINGS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05471-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2021) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Website, www.m1finance.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, the suit adds. M1 HOLDINGS INC. is a technology company offering a range of financial products and services through its wholly-owned, separate but affiliated operating subsidiaries. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph H. Mizrahi, Esq. COHEN & MIZRAHI LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Fl. Brooklyn, New York 11201 Telephone: (929) 575-4175 Facsimile: (929) 575-4195 E-mail: Joseph@cml.legal MADISON SQUARE: Merger Vote Gets Ok From Delaware Ch. Court Judge ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sierra Jackson at Reuters reports that MSG Networks Inc can proceed with a shareholder vote on its plans to merge into Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp, a Delaware Chancery Court judge ruled. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick rejected attempts from both companies' investors to block the vote, arguing that the proposed business combination did not violate the state's corporate law. A spokesperson for MSG Entertainment said in a statement that the company is "pleased" with the ruling and continues "to believe the transaction benefits all shareholders." MSG Networks and MSG Entertainment announced in March that they would combine through an all-stock transaction, after which MSG Networks would become a subsidiary of MSG Entertainment. MSG Networks investor Timothy Leisz later hit the sports broadcasting company and its board with a proposed class action in June, claiming the deal unfairly benefited the Dolan family, which controls both MSG Networks and MSG Entertainment. Investors Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund and James Gould filed a proposed class action derivative suit against MSG Entertainment's board and MSG Networks later that month. In the ruling, McCormick said that the merger did not violate a state law that prohibits a shareholder with a 15% voting stake from pursing a merger with the company within three years of when the shareholder acquired that equity. That three-year period ended for the Dolan family in 2013, the judge said. Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The cases are Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund et al. v. James L. Dolan et al, No. 2021-0468, and Leisz v. MSG Networks Inc et al, 2021-0504, in the Chancery Court of Delaware. For Hollywood Firefighters' Pension Fund: Eric Zagar of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check; and Gregory Varallo of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann For Gould: Mark Lebovitch and Gregory Varallo of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann For Leisz: Michael Palestina of Kahn Swick & Foto; Juan Monteverde of Monteverde & Associates; and Blake Bennett of Cooch & Taylor For MSG Networks: Andrew Ditchfield of Davis Polk & Wardwell; and Kevin Coen of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell For Dolan: Maeve O'Connor and Elliot Greenfield of Debevoise & Plimpton; and Brian Ralston of Potter Anderson & Corroon For MSG Entertainment: William Savitt and Ryan McLeod of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; and Elena Norman of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor. [GN] MAGELLAN HRSC: Court Issues Opinion on Coffin Transfer Bid Denial ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHRISTIE COFFIN; KIMBERLY WILLMOTT and BRENDA KASATY, Plaintiffs v. MAGELLAN HRSC, INC., Defendant, Case No. CIV 20-0144 JB/GJF (D.N.M.), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico issued a Memorandum Opinion detailing its denial of the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue. District Judge James O. Browning notes that on March 18, 2021, the Court entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020. In the Order, the Court stated that it would "issue a Memorandum Opinion at a later date more fully detailing its rationale for the decision." This Memorandum Opinion is the promised opinion. The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue, filed July 8, 2020. The Court held a hearing on August 7, 2020. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court should depart from the law of the case and retransfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; (ii) whether unanticipated post-transfer change in circumstances exist in this case and if the Court should consider them to warrant departure from the law of the case regarding transfer; and (iii) whether the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the class-action Plaintiffs' claims after Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty (the "Class Representatives") withdrew from a similar class-action case currently pending in this Court. The Court concludes that the case should not be retransferred to the Southern District of California because: (i) there are no factors that warrant the reconsideration of the original transfer order and thus departure from the law of the case; (ii) the Court should not consider unanticipated post-transfer changes in circumstance in considering a motion to retransfer, and, even if it does, such changes have not occurred in this case; and (iii) the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims because the Class Representatives' withdrawal from an ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK, does not revoke their consent to the District of New Mexico's jurisdiction. The Court, therefore, denies the request to retransfer venue to the Southern District of California. Factual Background The Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint for Violations of California Labor Law Statutes and Unfair Business Practices was filed on June 14, 2019 ("Complaint"). The Court accepts the factual allegations as true for the purposes of the Motion. Christie Coffin, Kimberly Willmott, and Brenda Kasaty, all worked at various points in time from 2014 through the present as Care Managers and Senior Care Managers for the Defendant, Magellan HRSC, Inc. ("Magellan HRSC"). Of the Class Representatives, only one resides currently in California. The Plaintiffs proposed a class that includes the Class Representatives and "all similarly situated former and current employees of Magellan HRSC who, at any time during the four year period preceding the filing of this complaint, were employed in California in the capacity of a 'care manager' or 'senior care manager' and classified as an exempt employee." Magellan HRSC classified the Plaintiffs as employees exempt from overtime pay, leading the Class Representatives to file causes of action, including: (i) failure to pay wages under Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201, 202, 204; (ii) failure to pay overtime compensation under Cal. Indus. Welfare Comm'n, Order No. 4-2001; (iii) failure to furnish accurate itemized wage statements under Cal. Lab. Code Section 226(a); and (iv) unlawful business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Magellan HRSC classified employees working in the roles of "Care Manager" and "Senior Care Manager" as exempt from the requirement to be paid overtime wages. According to the Complaint, during their employment with Magellan HRSC, the Plaintiffs were expected to, and did consistently, "work in excess of 8 hours in a day and/or 40 hours in a work week without being paid overtime compensation." During their employment, the Plaintiffs were not paid for the full amount of time worked, compensated for overtime worked, nor provided itemized wage statements. Procedural Background In June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a class action in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego against Magellan HRSC. Magellan HRSC removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and then sought to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On Feb. 19, 2020, the Honorable Cynthia Bashant, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California, transferred this action to the District of New Mexico ("SDC Order"). The SDC Order states that the first-to-file rule applies to this action regarding an ongoing case in the District of New Mexico, Deakin v. Magellan Health, Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-773 KWR/KK ("Deakin"), pending before the Honorable Kea W. Riggs, United States District Judge for the District of New Mexico. Judge Bashant notes that Deakin was filed before this action. Judge Bashant also concludes that both actions contain substantially similar parties, including the same Defendant and two classes that "will encompass at least some of the same individuals." Judge Bashant explains that the underlying allegations of the two actions are the same: that Magellan HRSC misclassifies certain employees as exempt from overtime pay and underpays employees because of this misclassification. Judge Bashant concludes that: (i) the Plaintiffs did not show that they will suffer prejudice because of a transfer of venue; (ii) that dismissal is inappropriate because this action includes claims founded on the California Labor Code, rather than just the FLSA and New Mexico law in Deakin; and (iii) that transfer to the District Court of New Mexico is most appropriate. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of California. The Plaintiffs argue that transfer is proper, because this action: (i) was filed originally in California and may be heard in the Southern District of California; (ii) alleges violations of substantive California law; and (iii) arises out of events and transactions taking place exclusively in California. The Plaintiffs argue, among other things, that these considerations, along with discretionary factors and the interests of an efficient judiciary, make the Southern District of California proper venue for this action. In response, Magellan HRSC argues that the action was transferred properly to the District of New Mexico under the first-to-file rule, because this action is tied to a Fair Labor Standards Act class action pending currently before Judge Riggs in Deakin that the Plaintiffs "had affirmatively opted-in to." Magellan HRSC maintains that the Court must apply the law-of-the-case principle that "generally forbids one district court from reconsidering issues that another district court decided in the same case." Magellan HRSC then contends, among other things, that law-of-the-case principles apply, particularly to transfer decisions, and prohibit the Court from reconsidering previous decisions in the case that the Southern District of California made. The Plaintiffs reply that law-of-the-case principles do not apply here, because their withdrawal from Deakin makes the first-to-file rule inapplicable. The Plaintiffs insist that their withdrawal from Deakin constitutes "a post-transfer change of circumstance that warrants reconsider[ing] venue in the first instance." The Plaintiffs further argue that the Court should adopt a broad interpretation of post-transfer changes in circumstance that warrant reconsidering previous transfer decisions. The Court held a hearing on Aug. 7, 2020. The Court, noting that it is "hesitant, after a federal judge in California looked at this issue and transferred it here, to start bouncing it back," stated that the Plaintiffs' initial decision to join Deakin amounted to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court. The Court concluded that it is "inclined to keep" the case. The Order On March 18, 2021, the Court issued an order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue. The Court agreed with Judge Bashant that the '"first-to-file rule applies because litigation involving substantially similar parties and issues is pending in an earlier-filed case in New Mexico, and transfer of this action to that district will maximize judicial efficiency and consistency." The Court concluded that the previous transfer created a "'heavy presumption' in favor of keeping the case in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico," and should not be reconsidered lightly. The Court stated that it would not serve the interests of judicial efficiency to reconsider the original transfer order. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not alleged facts sufficient to warrant the Court's reconsideration of Judge Bashant's transfer decision. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue on the basis of the Tenth Circuit's instruction in Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)("Chrysler Credit Corp.") to abide by the law-of-the-case doctrine regarding transferor court decisions, because: (i) there has been no change to governing law by the subsequent decision of a higher court; (ii) the Plaintiffs have not alleged that new evidence has become available in the Southern District of California that warrants retransfer; (iii) Judge Bashant did not make a clear error in transferring this action to the District of New Mexico; and (iv) there is no "manifest injustice" in declining to reevaluate Judge Bashant's original transfer order. Judge Browning also holds, among other things, that the Court does not agree with the Plaintiffs that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them and their claims, because the Class Representatives' original consent to join Deakin amounts to consent to the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction and cannot be revoked. The Court also concludes that the Plaintiffs' challenges to the Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction regarding absent class-members lack a sound basis in the applicable law and relevant facts. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to Transfer Venue. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion dated June 24, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ew59cfwj from Leagle.com. Daniel Robert Shinoff, Artiano Shinoff, in San Diego, California; and Sheldon A. Ostroff, Law Offices of Sheldon A. Ostroff, in San Diego, California; Abbey Marie Jahnke -- Abbey.Jahnke@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., in San Diego, California, Attorneys for the Plaintiffs. Mark D. Temple -- mtemple@bakerlaw.com -- Sabrina L. Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, LLP, in Houston, Texas, and Randy S. Bartell -- rbartell@montand.com -- Montgomery & Andrews, PA, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendant. MANGO STAND: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mango Stand, LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mango Stand, LLC, d/b/a CellPhoneCases.com Case No. 2:21-cv-03731 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mango Stand, LLC doing business as CellPhoneCases.com -- https://www.cellphonecases.com/ -- offers guaranteed lowest prices on cell phone cases and covers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com MARYLAND: Class Action Over Unemployment Benefits Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Amy Simpson, writing for FOX5 News, reports that as a class-action lawsuit makes its way through the court system in Maryland, it is not the first state to see a challenge on its response to jobless benefits during the pandemic. In April, five women filed a class-action lawsuit against the head of the Virginia Employment Commission. By the end of May, a federal judge approved a settlement in the case -- ordering VEC to "substantially resolve" at least 95% of unpaid claims by Labor Day and to improve communication with claimants in Virginia. Maryland's class-action lawsuit was filed against Governor Larry Hogan and Maryland Secretary of Labor Tiffany Robinson. The suit was filed on behalf of approximately 50,000 people who have applied for Maryland benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. The class-action suit asks for a temporary restraining order on the Governor's decision to end federal benefits. It also asks for eligible unemployment claims to be processed, adjudicated, and paid out. On June 25, a judge in Indiana ruled the Hoosier state must continue to provide federal unemployment benefits to claimants there, which temporarily blocks Governor Eric Holcomb's decision to opt-out of the programs. In response to the Maryland unemployment lawsuit, Governor Larry Hogan's office told FOX45 News: On bonus benefits: Go anywhere in the state right now, and employers will tell you their top challenge is finding enough workers. In fact, there are more jobs available now than ever before. Even the White House has distanced itself from bonus benefits, saying that states have every right to opt out. One example of what our labor shortage looks like can be found in our most recent jobs report. The Accommodations and Food Services industry added 2,200 jobs in May -- less than in February, March, and April even while demand continues to rise. Additionally, wages and salaries rose in May. All of this points to the conditions that warrant opting out of the program. On pending claims: The state continues to successfully process more than 97% of claims even while facing an onslaught of fraudulent claims each week. For the small fraction that are pending, state law unfortunately leaves claimants vulnerable to being stuck in a complicated adjudication process. The General Assembly failed to address this problem during its 2021 session. [GN] MARYLAND: Judge to Issue Decision On Unemployment Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Rose Ramos at cbslocal.com reports that the fate of federal unemployment benefits for thousands of Marylanders remains in limbo as a judge stalls his final decision just hours before the funds end. Last month, Maryland's unemployed workers filed a lawsuit pushing for those benefits to be extended after Governor Larry Hogan announced a July 3rd deadline A circuit court judge says he needs more time to decide whether to end the additional federal pandemic benefits that put $300 more dollars into the pockets of unemployed Marylanders. This is a decision thousands of folks have been waiting for . . . . . and we know this because the hearing was a public one broadcast via zoom with a phone number anyone from the general public could can – and at one point over sixteen thousand people were dialed in . . . . all eagerly awaiting this decision "So in the past six months I've applied to a hundred jobs," said Dee Green, who is unemployed. Green says her full-time job right now is trying to get a job. I have my business suit and I have been active even at sixty-three, i'm just out there applying to jobs and showing up for interviews," Green said. But it's been months and nothing. And that's why in the meantime, she says she needs her unemployment benefits, but the federal benefit of three hundred dollars expires soon. "That three hundred dollars represents food on the table," said Alec Summerfield, attorney for the Unemployed Workers Union. "That represents child care, that represents car payments, house payments, healthcare payments." In June, Governor Hogan announced the state will opt out of the benefits months before the federal deadline in September. Attorney Alec Summerfield filed a class-action lawsuit versus Governor Hogan and Maryland Labor Secretary Tiffany Robinson on behalf of about 50,000 people who filed for unemployment – hoping a judge will reverse the governor's decision. "We want him to stop the governor from cutting off the federal benefits of three hundred dollars a week getting to people," said Summerfield. But during a hearing, after listening to both sides, the case's judge said he needed more time to decide, leaving Maryland's unemployed awaiting a final decision. The judge said he will post his written decision soon. In response to backlash surrounding the deadline, Governor Hogan has said "While these federal programs provided important temporary relief, vaccines and jobs are now in good supply. And we have a critical problem where businesses across our state are trying to hire more people, but many are facing severe worker shortages." [GN] MDL 3000: Court Denies Transfer of Hayes' False Imprisonment Row ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case "In Re: Charles Hayes False Imprisonment Litigation," MDL NO. 3000, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the proposed transfer of two cases -- one from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and the other one from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada -- to the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff Charles Hayes claims that he was wrongfully held for several weeks in Clark County, Nevada and Kern County, California, due to a case of mistaken identity. The panel says that the actions pending in adjacent districts involve straightforward claims and allegations concerning a discrete time period, brought by a common Plaintiff who is represented by the same counsel in all actions and defendant Kern County is represented by the same counsel in the two actions in which it is named. The panel concludes that only a minimal number of actions are involved, the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that centralization is appropriate and Hayes has failed to meet that burden here. A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 order is available at https://bit.ly/3wnmBdf MDL 3001: 2 Gambling Apps Cases Transferred to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- In case docketed "In Re: Google Play Store Simulated Casino-Style Games Litigation," MDL No. 3001, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, transfers one case each from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and with the consent of that court, assigned them to Judge Edward J. Davila for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. These putative class actions present common factual questions arising from the allegation that Google, through its Google Play Store, promotes, facilitates, and profits from simulated casino-style games that involve gambling in violation of state laws. Plaintiffs in all actions allege that casino-style app games in the Google Play Store, such as slots, poker, blackjack, and bingo, allow users to purchase virtual coins or coin-like objects to play for the chance to win more playing time and that paying money for the chance to win more playing time constitutes unlawful gambling. Common factual questions include the nature of the game play within the same 200 or more involved apps and the function of in-app purchases, the nature of Google's relationship with the third-party app developers, including its process for reviewing and publishing apps, Google's financial arrangements for distributing app-based revenue from the games, and Apple's alleged promotion of the apps. Common defendants Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. support the motion to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of California. The panel agreed that the Northern District of California is the appropriate transferee district for this litigation as Google has its headquarters in this district, and thus, much of the common evidence likely is located there. A full-text copy of the Court's June 3, 2021 Transfer Order is available at https://bit.ly/2UiMpKb MDL 3002: Accellion Data Breach Disputes Transfer Request Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the product liability case "In Re: Accellion, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation," MDL No. 3002, Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, denied the proposed transfer of nine cases from the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California; two cases from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; and three cases from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Proponents of centralization argue that these actions share factual issues concerning a recently-disclosed breach of Accellion's File Transfer Appliance product from mid-December 2020 into January 2021. Plaintiffs are Accellion clients' customers and/or employees who allege their personally identifiable information and/or protected health information were compromised in the breach. The panel deems centralization of these actions unnecessary at this time since there is no reason to disrupt the parties' efforts at informal coordination when most agree that centralization would provide little or no benefit and emphasized that centralization should be the last solution after considering review of all other options. Additionally, any factual overlap among the actions as to Accellion's product, its vulnerability to attack and its alleged support of this product may be eclipsed by factual issues specific to each client defendant. Opponents of centralization argue that, rather than a single data breach, there were numerous data breaches of each client defendant, occurring at different times and involving each client defendant's own servers. A full-text copy of the Court's June 7, 2021 order is available at https://bit.ly/3dCBPV2 MICHAEL KORS: Vasquez Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Norma Vasquez, as an individual and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Michael Kors USA, Inc., a California corporation; Does 1 through 50, inclusive; Case No. 30-02021-01201548-CU-OE-CXC was transferred from the Superior Court State of CA County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 1, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:21-cv-01145-JLS-ADS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights for Employment Discrimination. Michael Kors USA -- https://www.michaelkors.com/ -- is an online shop for jet set luxury: designer handbags, watches, shoes, clothing & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Armond Marced Jackson, Esq. JACKSON LAW APC 2 Venture Plaza Suite 240 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 281-6857 Fax: (949) 777-6218 Email: ajackson@jlaw-pc.com The Defendants are represented by: Jennifer Rose Nunez, Esq. Elizabeth Mary Levy, Esq. Jonathan D. Meer, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Fax: (310) 201-5219 Email: jnunez@seyfarth.com elevy@seyfarth.com jmeer@seyfarth.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Manning Appeals Ruling in Putative Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended June 3, 2021, that the appeal in the putative class action suit initiated by Chris Manning, remains pending. On June 13, 2019, current Micron employee, Chris Manning, filed a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Micron employees subject to the Idaho Wage Claim Act who earned a performance-based bonus after the conclusion of 2018 whose performance rating was calculated based upon a mandatory percentage distribution range of performance ratings. On July 12, 2019, Manning and three other Company employees filed an amended complaint as putative class action representatives. On behalf of themselves and the putative class, Manning and the three other plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Idaho Wage Claim Act, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and fraud. On June 24, 2020, the court entered judgment in favor of Micron based on the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on July 23, 2020. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Micron Technology, Inc., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and markets dynamic random access memory chips (DRAMs), static random access memory chips (SRAMs), flash memory, semiconductor components, and memory modules. The company is based in Boise, Idaho. MIDLAND CREDIT: Zamora FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Carolina C. Zamora, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. ESX-L-4221-21 was transferred from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 2, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13290 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Midland Credit Management, Inc. -- https://www.midlandcredit.com/ -- is a specialty finance company providing debt recovery solutions for consumers across a broad range of assets.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Dana Brett Briganti, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 800 3rd Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 471-6200 Email: dbriganti@hinshawlaw.com MONTANA SKY: Guy Files Suit in S.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Montana Sky, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Dorothy Guy; Cristal Miller formerly known as: Cristal Graham; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Montana Sky, LLC; Rock Wilson and G. Russell Rollyson, Jr., individually and in his official capacity; Case No. 2:21-cv-00381 (S.D.W. Va., July 2, 2021). The nature of suit is stated as Other Civil Rights for the Civil Rights Act. Montana Sky is a real estate company in Billings, Montana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bren J. Pomponio, Esq. MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 1217 Quarrier Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: (304) 344-3144 Fax: (304) 344-3145 Email: bren@msjlaw.org NAT'L COLLEGIATE: SCOTUS Upheld Rulings in Federal Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- On Monday June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld lower court rulings that the National Collegiate Athletic Association's restrictions on education-related benefits violated federal antitrust law. The Supreme Court's 9-0 decision brings an end to more than 7 years of hard-fought litigation led by Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP and co-counsel Winston & Strawn, LLP and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The defendants in the case were the NCAA and the top athletic conferences in the country, who were represented by some of the most prestigious defense law firms in the country. "This is a banner day for college athletes," said Pearson, Simon & Warshaw attorney Ben Shiftan. "For far too long, college athletes have put their blood, sweat, and tears into their sports, earning enormous sums of money for their universities and the NCAA, all while having their educational benefits artificially capped. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 makes it all the more special." The decision pokes significant holes in the NCAA's mantra that it should be permitted to cap compensation to college athletes in the name of "amateurism." As Justice Gorsuch noted in the majority opinion, "the district court found that the NCAA had not adopted any consistent definition" of amateurism and that "[i]nstead, the court found, the NCAA's rules and restrictions on compensation have shifted markedly over time." As Justice Kavanaugh noted in his concurrence, the NCAA should not be permitted to cap compensation under the theory that "the defining feature of college sports . . . is that the student athletes are not paid." After all, "[a]ll of the restaurants in a region cannot come together to cut cooks' wages on the theory that 'customers prefer' to eat food from low-paid cooks. Law firms cannot conspire to cabin lawyers' salaries in the name of providing legal services out of a 'love of the law.' Hospitals cannot agree to cap nurses' income in order to create a 'purer' form of helping the sick." The decision will be cited by courts throughout the country for decades to come. However, it is just one part of the nationwide movement to improve college athletes' economic rights. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw looks forward to continuing the fight on behalf of college athletes. Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Minneapolis, has emerged as a nationally recognized force in class action lawsuits and complex litigation. For more information about the firm, please visit https://www.pswlaw.com [GN] NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS: Court Enters Order for Class Cert. Bids ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIANA LISHESKI, et al. v. NEUROLOGICAL FITNESS EQUIPMENT AND EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03826-FMO-PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions for class certification. 1. Joint Brief The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully integrated joint brief covering each party's position, in which each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately followed by the opposing party's/parties' response. 2. Citation to Evidence All citation to evidence in the joint brief shall be directly to the exhibit and page number(s) of the evidentiary appendix, or page and line number(s) of a deposition. 3. Page Limitation Each separately-represented party shall be limited to 25 pages, exclusive of tables of contents and authorities. Repetition shall be avoided and, as always, brevity is preferred. Leave for additional space will be given only in extraordinary cases. A copy of the Court's order dated July 5, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UtK6DS at no extra charge.[CC] OBI SEAFOODS: Paunovic FLSA Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MARIJA PAUNOVIC and DUSAN PAUNOVIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OBI SEAFOODS LLC and OCEAN BEAUTY SEAFOODS LLC, Case No. 21-2-07112-7 SEA, was removed from the King County Superior Court for the State of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Washington assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-00884 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act. OBI Seafoods LLC is a seafood company with administrative offices located in Seattle, Washington. Ocean Beauty Seafoods LLC is a seafood company with administrative offices located in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Douglas E. Smith, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. One Union Square 600 University Street, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3122 Telephone: (206) 623-3300 Facsimile: (206) 447-6965 E-mail: desmith@littler.com OCUGEN INC: Gross Law Reminds Investors of August 17 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ: OCGN). Shareholders who purchased shares of OCGN during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/ocugen-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17363&from=5 CLASS PERIOD : February 2, 2021 to June 10, 2021 ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose 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. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline -------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces purchasers of Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:OCGN) securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have until August 17, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ocugen class action lawsuit. The case is captioned Nicanor v. Ocugen, Inc., No. 21-cv-02725, and is assigned to C. Darnell Jones, II of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Ocugen class action lawsuit charges Ocugen and certain of its executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Ocugen class action lawsuit or have questions concerning your rights regarding the Ocugen class action lawsuit, please provide your information here or contact counsel, J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller, at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ocugen class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August 17, 2021. CASE ALLEGATIONS: 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 Emergency Use Authorization ("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. On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it would pursue a biologics license application ("BLA") with the FDA instead of the previously announced EUA. In doing so, Ocugen revealed that "[t]he FDA provided feedback to Ocugen regarding the Master File the Company had previously submitted and recommended that Ocugen pursue a BLA submission instead of an EUA application for its vaccine candidate and requested additional information and data. Ocugen is in discussions with the FDA to understand the additional information required to support a BLA submission. The Company anticipates that data from an additional clinical trial will be required to support the submission." On this news, the price of Ocugen stock fell more than 28%, damaging investors. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ocugen securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Ocugen 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 Ocugen class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Ocugen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Ocugen class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. 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] OLIN CORP: Court Narrows Claims in Consolidated IPP Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York issued a Decision and Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss certain claims asserted by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs in the lawsuits titled MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; THE TRIPP PLATING WORKS, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants; and PRECIOUS PLATE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:19-CV-00385 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW, 1:19-CV-00990 EAW (W.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. ("Tripp") and Precious Plate, Inc. ("Precious Plate") (collectively the "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs") bring these putative class actions against Defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shintech Incorporated, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging an anticompetitive conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. Presently before the Court is a motion filed by the Defendants seeking dismissal of these claims asserted by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs: (1) consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of various states; (2) antitrust claims asserted under the laws of various states; and (3) unjust enrichment claims asserted under the laws of various states. For the reasons set forth in this Decision and Order, the Defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. Background As noted, the instant actions relate to a purported anticompetitive conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. The details of the alleged conspiracy are set forth at length in this Court's Decision and Order dated March 27, 2020, resolving several prior motions to dismiss. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are New York corporations that "indirectly purchased Caustic Soda manufactured by one or more of the Defendants" during the relevant time period. The Lead Action was filed on March 22, 2019, and reassigned to Judge Wolford on May 8, 2019. The Lead Action and various related putative class actions brought by direct purchasers of caustic soda were referred for the handling of non-dispositive pretrial matters to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer, who entered a scheduling and case management order on May 17, 2019, consolidating the cases for pretrial purposes. Tripp commenced its putative class action on July 25, 2019 (Civil Action No. 19-cv-00785 (the "Tripp Action")). Precious Plate commenced its putative class action on July 29, 2019 (Civil Action No. 19-cv-00990 (the "Precious Plate Action")). Both matters were referred to Judge Roemer for the handling of non-dispositive pretrial matters. On Sept. 19, 2019, Judge Roemer entered a Case Management Order consolidating the Tripp Action and the Precious Plate Action into the Lead Action. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on April 16, 2020 (the "indirect purchaser complaint"). The Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss on May 28, 2020. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs filed their response on July 13, 2020, and Defendants filed their reply on August 12, 2020. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Claims The indirect purchaser complaint sets forth the following claims: (1) violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; (2) "restraint of trade" in violation of the laws of Arizona, California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin; (3) "unfair and deceptive trade practices" in violation of the laws of Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; and (4) unjust enrichment "under the law of the District of Columbia and the laws of all states and territories in the United States, except Ohio and Indiana." In addition to other forms of relief, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs seek an injunction pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26. In their motion papers, the Defendants seek dismissal of 38 of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' state consumer protection claims, 21 of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' state law antitrust claims, all of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims, and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. However, in their further briefing, the parties narrowed their disputes regarding the state consumer protection claims. Specifically, in their opposition papers, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. In their reply papers, the Defendants then indicated that they are no longer seeking dismissal of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of Florida, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, and Vermont. The Court, thus, limits its consideration of the consumer protection claims to those arising under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia. A. State Law Consumer Protection Claims The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia are subject to dismissal. The claims asserted under the laws of Colorado, Minnesota, and North Dakota will be permitted to proceed. The Defendants seek dismissal of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Mont. Code Section 30-14-101, et seq. (the "MUTPCPA"), and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act, Utah Code Section 13-11-4 (the "UCSPA"), on the basis that these statutes only protect "consumers." The Court agrees that dismissal of these claims is required. Here, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs do not allege that they purchased caustic soda "primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." To the contrary, they allege that they (and the other members of the putative classes) purchased caustic soda from the Defendants for "non-residential use." The Court, accordingly, agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not alleged a viable claim under the MUTPCPA and the UCSPA. The Defendants' argument regarding the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 646.605 et seq. (the "OUTPA") is also related to the purposes for which the purchases were made. As relevant here, it is unlawful under the OUTPA to make "false or misleading representations of fact concerning the offering price of . . . real estate, goods, or services." The OUTPA further defines "real estate, goods or services" to mean "those that are or may be obtained primarily for personal, family or household purposes, or that are or may be obtained for any purposes as a result of a telephone solicitation." As the Defendants correctly point out, Judge Wolford notes, there is nothing in the indirect purchaser complaint suggesting that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs or the members of the putative class obtained caustic soda "primarily for personal, family or household purposes." To the contrary, as already noted by the Court, there is an express allegation that the caustic soda at issue was obtained for "non-residential use." Accordingly, dismissal of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the OUTPA is warranted, citing F.D.S. Marine, LLC v. Shaver Transp. Co., No. 00-1245-ST, 2001 WL 34045718, at *1 (D. Or. May 25, 2001). The Court turns next to Defendants' arguments regarding the interaction between the Supreme Court's ruling in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims brought under the consumer protection laws of Alaska and New Jersey. The Court agrees with the analysis of the other courts, who have considered this issue and, accordingly, dismisses the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims under the laws of Alaska. The Defendants argue that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not alleged "communications with, or directed to, consumers," Wilson v. Gen. Motors Corp., 190 N.J. at 341 (2007), and so cannot maintain a claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the "NJCFA"). The Court agrees. The only "communications" that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs identify in opposition to the Defendants' motion are information provided by the Defendants to IHS Markit, an "industry analyst and consultant." This information was then allegedly used by IHS Markit in its management of a caustic soda pricing index. However, there is no allegation or suggestion in the indirect purchaser complaint that the information provided to IHS Markit was subsequently communicated to any consumer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of New Jersey's opinion in Wilson bars the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the NJCFA. The Court turns next to Defendants' arguments that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not pled viable claims under the consumer protection laws of Arizona, California, North Carolina, and West Virginia because they have not alleged that they relied on any misrepresentation by Defendants. The Court notes as an initial matter that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs concede that they have not pled reliance. As such, the issue before the Court is whether these states' consumer protection laws require reliance as an element of a claim. The Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (the "ACFA") prohibits persons from engaging in any deception of any material fact with intent that others rely on such concealment, suppression or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of consumer goods or services. Because proximate injury is an element of an ACFA claim, and because actual reliance is required to establish proximate injury, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the ACFA claims must be dismissed. The Court also agrees that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (the "CUCL"), fail as a matter of law. While it is true, as the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs point out, that the court in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal.4th 298, 326 (2009), also held that "a presumption, or at least an inference, of reliance arises wherever there is a showing that a misrepresentation was material," any such presumption has been rebutted in this case because, as noted, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs concede that they did not rely on any misrepresentations by the Defendants in deciding to purchase caustic soda, Judge Wolford opines. On these admitted facts, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot maintain a claim under the CUCL. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' concession that they did not rely on the purported misrepresentations by the Defendants is, thus, fatal to their consumer protection claims asserted under North Carolina law, Judge Wolford holds. The Court also agrees with the Defendants with respect to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' West Virginia consumer protection claims. The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the "WVCCPA") claims are subject to dismissal. The Defendants have made a related but distinct argument regarding the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the "ICFDBPA"). Specifically, the Defendants contend that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not alleged deception, as required to state a claim under the ICFDBPA. The Court agrees that, under the standard set by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Shannon v. Boise Cascade Corp., 208 Ill.2d 517, 525 (2004), the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not stated a viable claim under the ICFDBPA. Judge Wolford notes that the indirect purchaser complaint does not allege that any of these misrepresentations were made or received in New Hampshire. The fact that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (or members of the putative classes) may have subsequently purchased caustic soda in New Hampshire at allegedly inflated prices simply does not bring the claimed conduct within the ambit of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act (the "NHCPA"). The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' NHCPA claims must be dismissed. The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have adequately alleged deceptive conduct under the consumer protection laws of Minnesota and North Dakota. Judge Wolford notes that the Defendants have made no meaningful argument in this regard, but have simply cited the relevant statutes and asserted without additional elaboration that the indirect purchaser complaint fails to identify any conduct by the Defendants that would meet the pleading requirements for unconscionable, deceptive, or fraudulent conduct. The Court disagrees. Judge Wolford holds that the indirect purchaser complaint alleges a great deal of deceptive conduct by the Defendants, including the provision of false information to IHS Markit for the express purpose of manipulating the indexed price of caustic soda. Accepting these allegations as true, as it must at this stage of the proceedings, the Court finds no basis to dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Minnesota and North Dakota consumer protection claims. The Court notes that the Defendants have also argued that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot seek damages under the MUDTPA and cannot seek restitution under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (the "CCPA"). The Defendants are incorrect with respect to the MUDTPA--an individual may seek damages under the MUDTPA pursuant to Minnesota's private attorney general statute, Minn. Stat. Section 8.31, so long as the "cause of action benefits the public," Judge Wolford opines. She points out that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' allegations, accepted as true, support a plausible inference of benefit to the public in the event they are successful, because anticompetitive price fixing presents a public harm. As to Defendants' contention that the CCPA does not allow for restitution, the basis for this position is unclear, Judge Wolford finds. These actions are, of course, putative class actions. Because the Defendants have failed to provide any further elaboration on this argument, the Court must reject it at this stage of the proceedings. For all these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the consumer protection claims brought under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia, and denies it with respect to the consumer protection claims brought under the laws of Colorado, Minnesota, and North Dakota. B. State Law Antitrust Claims The Defendants seek dismissal of the antitrust claims brought under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia. The Court grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee antitrust claims will be allowed to proceed. The Court finds that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged intrastate effects as to the following contested jurisdictions: Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee. With respect to these three states, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have specifically alleged that one or more Defendants made sales of caustic soda therein. However, the Court agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged intrastate effects in Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia. The indirect purchaser complaint contains no specific allegations of sales of caustic soda in these states. Further, contrary to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' contentions, their factual allegations do not reasonably support the inference of impacts in every state, Judge Wolford notes. While it is true that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs estimate that Defendants "produce at least 90% of the domestic supply of Caustic Soda," they also allege that caustic soda is a "commodity chemical" used for industrial purposes and that the Defendants "have historically sold and currently sell" only to "hundreds of purchasers in the United States and elsewhere." On these allegations, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot maintain their antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia. In light of the fact that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have in fact provided notice of their complaints to the attorneys general of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, the Court will not dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims on this basis, and thus need not and does not decide whether the state law notice requirements apply in federal court. The Court will not dismiss the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the Illinois Antitrust Act. The Court grants the motion to dismiss with respect to the Montana antitrust claims. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims under the Utah Antitrust Act, as it is conceded that no named Plaintiff is a citizen or resident of Utah. In sum, the Court dismisses the antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia. The antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, and Tennessee will be permitted to proceed. C. Unjust Enrichment Claims The Defendants seek dismissal of all the unjust enrichment claims asserted by the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, for a variety of reasons. The Court says it need not and does not reach the majority of these arguments because it agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations of unjust enrichment do not comply with the relevant pleading standards. The Court finds the decision in In re Aggrenox Antitrust Litig., 94 F.Supp.3d 224 (D. Conn. 2015) instructive. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs cannot simply enumerate a long list of state-law claims for states where they might otherwise have no available antitrust recovery and rely on the defendants and the court to sort out whether or how those laws can act as surrogates for antitrust law. The Court, accordingly, agrees with the Defendants that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims should be dismissed. D. Clayton Act Claim for Injunctive Relief The Court turns finally to the viability of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Relying on In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Exp. Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008) and In re Nifedipine Antitrust Litig., 335 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.D.C. 2004), the Defendants argue that injunctive relief under the Clayton Act is not available because "Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts suggesting they face a real and immediate threat of continuing harm justifying the injunctive relief they seek." The Court disagrees. Judge Wolford notes that the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have alleged that the Defendants are engaged in an ongoing anticompetitive conspiracy that continues to result in artificially inflated prices for caustic soda. She holds that this is sufficient to allow the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs to proceed on their request for injunctive relief under Section 16. The Court finds no basis, at this stage of the proceedings, to dismiss the claim for injunctive relief under Section 16 of the Clayton Act. Leave to Amend In their opposition papers, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs state that should the Court grant any part of the Defendants' partial motion to dismiss, the usual practice in the Second Circuit is to permit leave to replead to correct pleading deficiencies. However, the Court does believe that certain of the claims discussed could potentially be appropriately pled. Specifically, the Court finds that the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claims and the antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia should be without prejudice to filing a proper motion for leave to amend. Further, while the deadline for filing motions for leave to amend expired on March 31, 2021, the Court finds that good cause exists to make an exception to that deadline for the filing of such a motion. To the extent the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs wish to seek leave to amend the identified claims, they may file a motion seeking such relief within 45 days of the date of this Decision and Order. Conclusion For the reasons set forth, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' motion for partial dismissal of the indirect purchaser complaint. Specifically, the Court rules as follows: (1) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of Arkansas, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming are withdrawn without prejudice; (2) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims asserted under the laws of Alaska, Arizona, California, Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and West Virginia are dismissed with prejudice; (3) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' antitrust law claims asserted under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia are dismissed without prejudice; (4) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' antitrust claims asserted under the laws of Montana and Utah are dismissed with prejudice; and (5) the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims are dismissed without prejudice. The Defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser complaint is denied in all other respects. The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs may file a motion to amend the unjust enrichment claims and the antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, and West Virginia within 45 days of the date of this Decision and Order, consistent with their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In the event the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs file such a motion, the Court will set a briefing schedule and any obligation on the part of the Defendants to answer the indirect purchaser complaint will be stayed. However, in the event that no motion for leave to amend is filed, the Defendants will answer the indirect purchaser complaint within 60 days of the date of this Decision and Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated June 24, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ve6z8c2 from Leagle.com. OLIN CORP: Shin-Etsu & Formosa Dismissed From Antitrust Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York grants Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's motions to dismiss in the eight related lawsuits entitled MIAMI PRODUCTS & CHEMICAL CO., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. AMREX CHEMICAL CO., INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MAIN POOL AND CHEMICAL CO., INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. PERRY'S ICE CREAM COMPANY, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. FINCH PAPER, LLC, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. THE TRIPP PLATING WORKS, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. PRECIOUS PLATE, INC., On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs v. OLIN CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:19-CV-00385 EAW, 1:19-CV-00386 EAW, 1:19-CV-00392 EAW, 1:19-CV-00393 EAW, 1:19-CV-00403 EAW, 1:19-CV-00480 EAW, 1:19-CV-00975 EAW, 1:19-CV-00990 EAW (W.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Miami Products & Chemical Co., Amrex Chemical Co., Inc., Finch Paper, LLC, Main Pool and Chemical Co., Inc., Midwest Renewable Energy, LLC, Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., VanDeMark Chemical, Inc., The Tripp Plating Works, Inc., and Precious Plate, Inc. (collectively "Plaintiffs") bring these putative class actions against Defendants Olin Corporation, K.A. Steel Chemicals, Inc., Occidental Chemical Corporation, Westlake Chemical Corporation, Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. ("Shin-Etsu"), Shintech Incorporated ("Shintech"), Formosa Plastics Corporation ("Formosa"), and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. ("Formosa USA") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging an anticompetitive conspiracy to fix the price of caustic soda within the United States. Presently before the Court are: (1) a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by Shin-Etsu; and (2) a renewed motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for failure to state a claim filed by Formosa. For the reasons discussed, the Court grants Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's motions to dismiss, finding that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over either of these corporations. Background The instant actions relate to a purported anticompetitive conspiracy by the Defendants to fix the price of caustic soda in the United States. The details of the alleged conspiracy are set forth at length in the Court's Decision and Order dated March 27, 2020, resolving several prior motions to dismiss (the "March 27th Decision"). The procedural background of these matters is also set forth in detail in the March 27th Decision. The Court sets forth the salient and subsequent procedural developments. It is necessary to note as an initial matter that there are two operative complaints in this matter--a consolidated class action complaint filed by Amrex Chemical Co., Inc., Finch Paper, LLC, Main Pool & Chemical Company, Inc., Miami Products & Chemical Company, Midwest Renewable Energy LLC, Perry's Ice Cream Company, Inc., and VanDeMark Chemical, Inc. (collectively the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs") (the "direct purchaser complaint")) and a consolidated class action complaint filed by The Tripp Plating Works, Inc. and Precious Plate, Inc. (collectively the "Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs") (the "indirect purchaser complaint")). Shin-Etsu and Formosa previously filed motions to dismiss the claims set forth in the direct purchaser complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. In its Match 27th Decision, the Court denied Shin-Etsu's and Formosa's motions without prejudice to renewal after completion of jurisdictional discovery. Shin-Etsu filed its renewed motion to dismiss on Nov. 30, 2020, seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it in both the direct purchaser complaint and the indirect purchaser complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on Dec. 10, 2020, and indicated therein that "The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs join this opposition to Shin-Etsu's motion." Shin-Etsu filed its reply on Dec. 31, 2020. Formosa filed its renewed motion to dismiss on Feb. 8, 2021, also seeking dismissal of all claims asserted against it in both the direct purchaser complaint and the indirect purchaser complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed opposition papers on March 1, 2021, again noting that "The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs join this opposition to [Formosa's] motion." Formosa filed its reply on March 22, 2021. A. Shin-Etsu Shin-Etsu is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Tokyo, and Shintech, which is based in the United States, is one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Plaintiffs argue that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Shin-Etsu because: (1) Shin-Etsu directly participated in conduct related to the instant lawsuit; (2) Shin-Etsu exercised "some control" over Shintech's caustic soda business; and (3) Shin-Etsu is an alter-ego of Shintech. These contentions cannot bear scrutiny, District Judge Elizabeth A. Wolford notes. Before delving into the specifics of the Plaintiffs' arguments as to Shin-Etsu, the Court addresses first an issue that permeates the Plaintiffs' opposition. It is undisputed that Yasuhiko Saitoh ("Saitoh") is president of both Shin-Etsu and Shintech. The Plaintiffs' personal jurisdiction arguments as to Shin-Etsu rely almost entirely on this fact, inasmuch as the Plaintiffs contend that Saitoh's actions, even when taken in his capacity as president of Shintech, are attributable to Shin-Etsu. However, this contention runs afoul of well-established caselaw and, accordingly, cannot be sustained, Judge Wolford holds. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51 (1998), "it is entirely appropriate for directors of a parent corporation to serve as directors of its subsidiary, and that fact alone may not serve to expose the parent corporation to liability for its subsidiary's acts," Judge Wolford explains. Judge Wolford finds that the Plaintiffs have not addressed Bestfoods and its progeny and have not come forward with or pointed to any evidence from which the Court could conclude that Saitoh was wearing his "parent hat" when taking actions on behalf of Shintech. Accordingly, they have not rebutted the presumption that Saitoh's actions taken while acting as president of Shintech are not attributable to Shin-Etsu. The "contacts" identified by the Plaintiffs simply are not enough to demonstrate that Shin-Etsu purposefully availed itself of the forum by deliberately directing its conduct at the United States and that the matter at issue. . . arose out of, or is sufficiently related to, Shin-Etsu's in-forum conduct, Judge Wolford opines, citing Nike, Inc. v. Wu, 349 F.Supp.3d 310, 330 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). As to the first of the claimed contacts, the Plaintiffs have submitted to the Court evidence that (1) Saitoh was identified as the president of Shin-Etsu on a list of planned attendees at a Shintech meeting with a caustic soda customer and (2) that Toshiaki Ansai ("Ansai"), Shintech's vice-president, identified Saitoh as the "President of Shin-Etsu/Shintech" in an email thread discussing a letter that Ansai sent to a third-party complaining about its reporting of caustic soda export prices in the United States. The first of these actions is completely untethered to the price-fixing conspiracy alleged by the Plaintiffs; there is no evidence that any sales of caustic soda were made or even discussed at the meeting in question, Judge Wolford observes, among other things. As such, even assuming the Saitoh was wearing his "parent hat" at this meeting, that does not implicate Shin-Etsu in the conduct at issue in this lawsuit. In sum, the Plaintiffs have not come forward with evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Shin-Etsu had sufficient direct contacts with the United States related to the alleged price-fixing conspiracy at issue in this lawsuit to support an exercise of personal jurisdiction, Judge Wolford holds. Judge Wolford again notes that there is no basis for the conclusion that Saitoh was actually acting on behalf of Shin-Etsu when functioning as Shintech's president. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' assertions regarding Saitoh's involvement in the management and supervision of Shintech's caustic soda operations, including his communications with Ansai regarding a caustic soda price index, cannot establish personal jurisdiction over Shin-Etsu. Viewing the evidence regarding actions taken by Saitoh in the appropriate context, the Plaintiffs have not identified evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that Shin-Etsu and Shintech were involved in a "common business enterprise" related to caustic soda, Judge Wolford finds. On this record, the Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Shin-Etsu on an agency theory. The Plaintiffs' final argument as to Shin-Etsu is that Shintech can be considered Shin-Etsu's alter-ego for purposes of personal jurisdiction. This argument warrants little discussion, as it is wholly contradicted by the evidence of record, Judge Wolford notes. In considering whether a subsidiary is the parent corporation's alter-ego for jurisdictional purposes, the Court considers the failure to observe corporate formality; inadequate capitalization; intermingling of personal and corporate funds, and the sharing of common office space, among other things. Judge Wolford opines that in this case, the relevant considerations overwhelmingly demonstrate that Shintech is not a mere shell. Judge Wolford opines that it is undisputed that Shintech is robustly capitalized, and the Plaintiffs similarly concede that Shin-Etsu and Shintech have many separate employees and offices worldwide, and have generally respected corporate formalities. On this record, a rational factfinder could not find that Shintech is Shin-Etsu's alter-ego. For all these reasons, the Court finds that Shin-Etsu has demonstrated its entitlement to dismissal of the claims against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. B. Formosa The Court turns next to Formosa's assertion that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it. As the Court explained in the March 27th Decision, Formosa is a Taiwanese parent corporation to Formosa USA. The Plaintiffs contend that the Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Formosa based on: (1) Formosa's direct influence and participation in the United States caustic soda market; and (2) an agency relationship between Formosa and Formosa USA. As an initial matter, the Court notes that in its reply papers, Formosa asks the Court to strike portions of the attorney declaration of C. Andrew Dirksen on the basis that they contain inadmissible hearsay and irrelevant attorney commentary. The Court declines to strike any portion of the Dirksen Declaration, inasmuch as Formosa has failed to make any legal argument as to the propriety of that remedy. However, the Court agrees with Formosa that much of the Dirksen Declaration is not admissible evidence and, thus, cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary support for an exercise of personal jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding Formosa's purported direct contacts with the United States' caustic soda market rely largely on their position that Formosa made sales of caustic soda to three customers in the United States, using Formosa USA as a mere nominal middleman. Formosa strongly disputes this characterization of its conduct, contending that it sold caustic soda to Formosa USA in Taiwan, and Formosa USA then resold the materials to its own customers without any involvement on Formosa's part other than delivering the material as directed by its customer, Formosa USA. Formosa further argues that no reasonable factfinder could resolve this dispute in the Plaintiffs' favor, because the Plaintiffs' argument is based on attorney speculation and inadmissible hearsay, whereas Formosa has submitted sworn declarations from individuals with personal knowledge of the facts. The Court agrees with Formosa. Formosa has satisfied this burden and has submitted to the Court sworn declarations by individuals with personal knowledge confirming that the United States-based corporations at issue were not, as the Plaintiffs claim, de facto customers of Formosa, Judge Wolford holds. In opposition to Formosa's motion, the Plaintiffs rely on the Dirksen Declaration. In the Dirksen Declaration, counsel makes numerous assertions about Formosa's and Formosa USA's sales to the three United States customers at issue, based on an analysis and comparison of Formosa's and Formosa USA's transactional sales date by Plaintiffs' economic consultants. Counsel's secondhand summary of an analysis performed by unnamed economic experts whose credentials have not even been provided to the Court is not admissible evidence, Judge Wolford holds, citing Hollander v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 172 F.3d 192, 202 (2d Cir. 1999). Considering only the admissible evidence, no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Formosa made direct sales to the three United States-based companies identified by the Plaintiffs, nor that it attended multiple trade conferences in the United States, as the Plaintiffs contend, Judge Wolford finds. Instead, the record before the Court demonstrates that the only contact with the United States that Formosa had during the relevant time period, is a single trip to Texas, around the time of the 2017 International Petrochemical Conference hosted by non-party American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM"), at which Formosa representatives discussed the sale of caustic soda with employees of Formosa USA. The Plaintiffs have failed to connect this single trip to the United States to the unlawful conduct alleged in this lawsuit, much less to show that it was a but-for cause of their claimed injuries, Judge Wolford concludes. She adds that the Plaintiffs also make a somewhat convoluted argument that Formosa engaged in conduct aimed at the United States by withholding caustic soda from the United States' market. However, Formosa has presented unrebutted evidence that its sales of caustic soda to Formosa USA actually increased from 2016 to 2018. For all these reasons, the Court finds that it cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Formosa based on its own direct contacts with the United States. The Court further concludes that no reasonable factfinder could determine that Formosa USA was acting as Formosa's agent with respect to its caustic soda operations in the United States. As an initial matter, the Court notes that in making many of their arguments regarding agency, the Plaintiffs have erroneously conflated Walter Chen, the former executive vice-president of Formosa USA, with Shao-Ter Chen, the current vice-president of Formosa. Formosa has established that Walter Chen and Shao-Ter Chen are two different people, and so the Plaintiffs' arguments that rely on the assumption that Walter Chen was an executive at both Formosa and Formosa USA are without merit and are, accordingly, disregarded by the Court. The Plaintiffs' remaining arguments, in essence, are that Formosa provided Formosa USA with "guidance" regarding "U.S. caustic soda market sales." However, providing advice and guidance is very different than exercising control, as is required for a finding of agency, Judge Wolford notes. In sum, Judge Wolford holds, no rational factfinder could conclude, based on the evidence before the Court, that Formosa USA was acting as Formosa's agent with respect to the conduct at issue in this lawsuit. Formosa has demonstrated its entitlement to dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. Having reached this conclusion, the Court need not and does not reach Formosa's alternative request for dismissal for failure to state a claim. Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this Decision and Order, the Court grants Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd.'s and Formosa Plastics Corporation's respective motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' claims against these Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is direct to terminate Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. and Formosa Plastics Corporation as defendants in these actions. A full-text copy of the Court's Decision and Order dated June 24, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/wtjvv29t from Leagle.com. OPTION CARE: Fails to Pay Nurses' Overtime Wages, Folan Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER FOLAN; and ROBIN ALLEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPTION CARE HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-03385 (N.D. Ill., June 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as nurses. Option Care Health, Inc. provides infusion and home care management solutions. The Company offers products, services, and condition-specific clinical management programs for gastrointestinal abnormalities, infectious diseases, cancer, organ and blood cell transplants, bleeding disorders, and heart failures. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com -and- Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan Quiles, Esq. Logan A. Pardell, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com lpardell@shavitzlaw.com PALISADES ACQUISITION: Seeks Denial of Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MCCROBIE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PALISADES ACQUISITION XVI, LLC, ASTA FUNDING, INC. HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, AND TODD E. HOUSLANGER, Case No. 1:15-cv-00018-LJV-MJR (W.D.N.Y.), the Defendants contend that the proposed class does not meet the rigorous requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and, as such, the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification must be denied. This case arises out of a valid and enforceable default judgment entered by the Buffalo City Court against the Plaintiff, stemming from an unpaid credit card debt. The Plaintiff claims that the defendants' attempts to collect on this valid and enforceable judgment violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Unlike an FDCPA case where a plaintiff, on behalf of a purported class, claims a debt collector has engaged in some routine, repeated, violation common to everyone they attempted to collect debts from -- such as issuing letters that do not comply with initial communication requirements or using improper service methods -- this case involves issues that are unique to the Plaintiff. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that he had no knowledge of the lawsuit or default judgment against him, that his particular debt was not properly assigned to defendant Palisades, and that he, individually, did not receive notice of the assignment. The Plaintiff claims that this lack of notice constitutes a violation of the FDCPA and that the Houslanger Defendants' alleged failure to ensure he received such a notice before issuing an income execution on the valid judgment against him violated the FDCPA. Palisades is a New Jersey-based collection agency. The Attorneys for the Defendants are: Jonathan B. Bruno, Esq. Michelle L. Vizzi, Esq. RIVKIN RADLER LLP 477 Madison Ave., Suite 410 New York, NY 10022-5843 Telephone: (212) 455-9555 A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 2, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hk42lC at no extra charge.[CC] PAR ELECTRICAL: Curley Labor Code Suit Removed to S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled KOREY CURLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAR ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 37-2021-00019761-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on June 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-01200-GPC-AGS 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 failure to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failure to pay wages timely to terminated employees; failure to maintain accurate records; unfair competition law; and civil penalties. Par Electrical Contractors, Inc. is a construction engineering company, with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: JL Sean Slattery, Esq. Cynthia L. Marks, Esq. CARLSBAD LAW GROUP, LLP 5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (858) 793-6244 Facsimile: (858) 793-6005 E-mail: sslattery@carlsbadlawgroup.com cmarks@carlsbadlawgroup.com PARK AVENUE: Nisbett Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Park Avenue Leather Goods LLC. The case is styled as Kareem Nisbett, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Park Avenue Leather Goods LLC doing business as: T. Anthony LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-05740 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. T. Anthony -- https://tanthony.com/ -- offers are high-end luggage experts, famed American Heritage brand offering a selection of fine leather goods and travel accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1830 New York, NY 10170 Phone: (212) 764-7171 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Faces Class Action Over Philips CPAP Machine ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomson Rogers and Rice Harbut Elliott LLP have jointly issued a national class action on behalf of all persons in Canada who used a Philips CPAP machine, BIPAP machine or mechanical ventilator which are currently subject to a recall by the company. On June 14, 2021, Philips Respironics issued a recall notice in the US for approximately 35 models of its Respiratory Devices that were manufactured with a Polyester-Based Polyurethane (PE-PUR) sound abatement foam. Exposure to the PE-PUR foam can have adverse health effects including, but not limited to, increased cancer risk, respiratory damage, asthma, nausea, vomiting, and headache. As of June 23, 2021, Health Canada recalled all of the subject Respiratory Devices. It is alleged that Philips Respironics negligently designed and manufactured the Respiratory Devices and failed to warn users of the health risks associated with use of the Respiratory Devices, while assuring users of the safety of its products. The Representative Plaintiff, John Morel, was diagnosed with sleep apnea and purchased a Philips Dreamstation CPAP machine in 2019. Commenting on learning about the health risks associated with the machine, he states: "I was horrified to learn that my CPAP machine, which blows air into my lungs, could contain toxic particles. I relied on this device to treat my sleep apnea and I am concerned for my health. I have questions about when Philips became aware of the issue and if this could have been disclosed earlier." For further information regarding this claim, please contact: Stephen Birman at Thomson Rogers (sbirman@thomsonrogers.com or 416-868-3137); or Robert Ben at Thomson Rogers (rben@thomsonrogers.com or 416-868-3168); or Lucy Jackson at Thomson, Rogers (ljackson@thomsonrogers.com or 416-868-3154); or Anthony Leoni at Rice Harbut Elliott LLP (aleoni@rhelaw.com or 604-682-3771); or Jaclyn Vanstone at Rice Harbut Elliott LLP (jvanstone@rhelaw.com or 604-682-3771). [GN] POINT LOMA: Faces Singh Wage-and-Hour Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------- ASHA SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POINT LOMA REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-2021-00028133-CU-OE-CTL (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., June 30, 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 overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse all business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, failure to provide paid sick leave, failure to timely pay all wages due upon separation of employment, and unfair business practices. The Plaintiff worked at the Defendants' rehabilitation center as a non-exempt employee since 2017. Point Loma Rehabilitation Center, LLC is an operator of rehabilitation centers, with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Kashif Haque, Esq. Jessica L. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379-6250 Facsimile: (949) 379-6251 E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Martinez FDCPA Suit Moved to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Damaris A. Martinez, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, John Does 1 to 10, Case No. ESX-L-003926-21 was transferred from the Essex County Superior Court, Law Division, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 2, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-13311 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC -- https://www.portfoliorecovery.com/ -- provides debt recovery and collection services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendants are represented by: Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 548-2167 Email: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com POST FOODS: Judge Finalizes Attorney Fees in Labeling Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that a California federal judge on June 25 finalized attorney fees worth nearly $5.5 million in a settlement that ended a class action against Post Foods LLC on misleading cereal box labels. [GN] PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: High Court Tosses Appeal in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28 rejected PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's bid for review of a Second Circuit holding that roughly 17,000 retirees could receive money damages in a long-running class action over how the accounting firm calculated lump-sum benefits. [GN] PROCTOR & GAMBLE: Keirsted Suit Moved From M.D. Fla. to S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled WENDY KEIRSTED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 6:21-cv-00778, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 30, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of New York assigned Case No. 7:21-cv-05648-UA to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged false and misleading advertising, unjust enrichment, and violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with the sale of its Crest brand Gum & Enamel Repair toothpaste. The Proctor & Gamble Company is an American multinational consumer goods corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite P-300 West Palm Beach, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Facsimile: (561) 514-0905 E-mail: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com - and – Daniel Faherty, Esq. TELFER, FAHERTY, & ANDERSON, PL 815 S. Washington Avenue, Suite 201 Titusville, FL 32780 Telephone: (321) 269-6833 Facsimile: (321) 383-9970 E-mail: danfaherty@hotmail.com CGuntner@ctrfa.com PURDUE PHARMA: Rochester City SD Set to Settle Opioid Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Murphy, writing for Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, reports that the Rochester City School District and other districts across the country are poised to settle a pair of lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers for unethical behavior in distributing opioids, bringing an unspecified pot of money for programs intended to combat the effects of opioid addiction. The lawsuits were against Purdue and Mallinckrodt, two large drug companies that filed for bankruptcy protection in the face of massive claims from individuals and governments affected by their alleged indiscriminate distribution of highly addictive opioids. Both lawsuits involve dozens of school districts across the country. RCSD also remains involved in one large outstanding class-action lawsuit and another against a third company in bankruptcy, the Rochester Drug Cooperative, General Counsel Steve Carling said. "We expect as time goes on we'll see more of these type of settlements, either from bankruptcies or direct action," Carling said. The lawsuits make two claims: first, that students have been harmed by the companies' opioid distribution, either because they themselves became addicted or because their parents or guardians did. "Because of Defendants' horrific wrongdoing, which created the worst man-made epidemic in history, births of children with prenatal opioid exposure have increased exponentially since the onslaught of the opioid epidemic, and they show no signs of slowing down," the plaintiffs in one class-action suit wrote. "As a result, our nations' public schools will be straddled with the extra costs of education of children with prenatal opioid exposure for years to come." Second, RCSD and other districts are seeking damages for the harm done to employees. RCSD is self-insured and therefore has faced mounting expenses for drug counseling, for instance. 'All the help we can get' Statistics compiled by Common Ground Health from 2014-16 show that urban residents were by far the most likely to visit the emergency room for an opioid overdose. White and Latino people were the hardest hit across all geographic sectors. But urban Black residents, too, visited the emergency room at a greater rate than white or Latino people in suburban or rural areas. No other districts in Monroe County are involved in the lawsuits; neither are any of New York's other large urban districts. RCSD became involved in litigation at the suggestion of board member Ricardo Adams. The idea came shortly after an issue with an employee abusing opioids, he said. "I felt really strongly about fighting back and resisting the big pharmaceutical companies," he said. "Anything we can do to help families." The Purdue and Mallinckrodt lawsuits have not yet been officially settled. The school board voted to agree to settle them. Because RCSD has been one of the most active parties in the litigation, it likely will receive a direct cash award, albeit a small one, Carling said. Litigation attorney Alison Moyer has been spearheading the effort. A potentially greater pool of money also will be made available to fund programs in school districts meant to address problems caused among students, families and staff members who abused opioids. That could mean, for instance, additional funding for special education services for children born with cognitive disabilities due to their parents abusing opioids. Carling likened the opioid class-action lawsuit to earlier campaigns regarding tobacco and lead paint. "We're a struggling community," Adams said. "We need all the help we can get." [GN] REKOR SYSTEMS: Klein Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------ The Klein Law Firm announces that a class action complaint has been filed on behalf of shareholders of Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR) alleging that the Company violated federal securities laws. Class Period: April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: August 30, 2021 No obligation or cost to you. Learn more about your recoverable losses in REKR: https://www.kleinstocklaw.com/pslra-1/rekor-systems-inc-f-k-a-novume-solutions-inc-loss-submission-form?id=17366&from=5 Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. NEWS - REKR NEWS CLASS ACTION CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. made materially 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 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. WHAT THIS MEANS TO YOU AS A SHAREHOLDER: If you have suffered a loss in Rekor Systems you have until August 30, 2021 to petition the court for lead plaintiff status. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Rekor Systems securities during the relevant period, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket fees. HOW TO PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: For additional information about the REKR lawsuit, please contact J. Klein, Esq. by telephone at 212-616-4899 or click this link. ABOUT KLEIN LAW FIRM J. Klein, Esq. represents investors and participates in securities litigations involving financial fraud throughout the nation. The Klein Law Firm is a boutique litigation firm with experience in a wide range of areas including securities law, corporate finance and commercial litigation. Since 2011, our experienced attorneys have achieved superior results for our clients with a personalized focus. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] REKOR SYSTEMS: Rosen Law Reminds Investors of August 30 Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Rekor Systems, Inc. f/k/a Novume Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: REKR) (NASDAQ: NVMM) between April 12, 2019 and May 25, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). 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 30, 2021. SO WHAT: If you purchased Rekor securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Rekor class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2112.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 30, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rekor's automatic license plate recognition ("ALPR") technology and uninsured vehicle enforcement diversion ("UVED") related business are 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, among other things, 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' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Rekor class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2112.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. [GN] REKOR SYSTEMS: Schall Law Firm Reminds 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 Sec10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between 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. [GN] RISHAVENA INC: Fails to Pay Coordinators' Wages, Millien Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- RUTHMELLE MILLIEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RISHAVENA, INC.; RISHAVENA HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCY INC.; MARC RICHARD HILAIRE; VENA LAURENT-HILAIRE; TALHIA DUCHATELIER; ABRAHAM STEEL; and ALIX LAURENT, Defendants, Case No. 515845/2021 (Sup. Ct. N.Y., Kings Cty., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and failure to pay wages due. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a client service coordinator from May 20, 2016 until on May 11, 2018. Rishavena, Inc. is a health care agency, with its principal place of business located at 1338 East 69th Street, Brooklyn, New York. Rishavena Home Health Care Agency Inc. is a home health care agency with its principal place of business located at 1338 East 69th Street, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Paul Mouton, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GREGORY P. MOUTON, JR., LLC 1441 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (646) 706-7481 E-mail: gmouton@moutonlawnyc.com ROACH & MURTHA: Burgess Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., et al. The case is styled as Owen Burgess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C., Gemini Equities, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-03730 (E.D.N.Y., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Roach & Murtha Attorneys at Law, P.C. -- https://www.roachcollections.com/ -- is a law firm in East Farmingdale, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (718) 705-8706 Fax: (718) 705-8705 Email: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com ROCKET COMPANIES: Gross Law Reminds of August 30 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- The securities litigation law firm of The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice on behalf of shareholders of Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT). Shareholders who purchased shares of RKT during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible Lead Plaintiff appointment. Appointment as Lead Plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery. CONTACT US HERE: https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=17338&from=5 CLASS PERIOD : February 25, 2021 to May 5, 2021 ALLEGATIONS : The complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Rocket's 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; (b) Rocket 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's Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (f) 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. The Gross Law Firm is committed to ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or misleading statements or the omission of material information by a Company lead to artificial inflation of the Company's stock. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ROCKET COMPANIES: 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 Rocket Companies, Inc. ("Rocket" or the "Company") (NYSE: RKT) Class A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Rocket investors have until August 30, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Rocket 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 5, 2021, Rocket announced first quarter 2021 financial results and second quarter 2021 outlook in a press release, reporting that it expected 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. The midpoint of this gain on sale margin estimate represented a 239 basis point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline sequentially, which was Rocket's lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years and reflected that favorable market conditions recently touted by the Company had in fact reversed. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.79, or nearly 17%, to close at $19.01 per share on May 6, 2021. On this news, the price of Rocket Companies Class A common stock fell by nearly 17% to close at $19.01 per share. 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 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) Rocket's 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; (2) Rocket 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's Partner Network operating segment; (3) the adverse trends identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's company-wide gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (6) 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 Rocket's Class A common stock, 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] ROCKET COMPANIES: Kessler Topaz Reminds of August 30 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. (NYSE: RKT) ("Rocket") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired Rocket Class A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired Rocket Class A common stock during the Class Period may, no later than August 30, 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/rocket-companies-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=rocket Rocket is an online mortgage lender that operates the Rocket Mortgage online platform, which allows clients to apply for and service mortgages through the Internet or by using Rocket's proprietary mobile phone app. Ninety percent of Rocket's revenues are derived from originating, closing, selling and servicing home mortgages. Rocket operates two primary segments: (1) the Direct-to-Consumer segment; and (2) the Partner Network segment. In its Partner Network, Rocket partners with third parties who utilize its platform to provide their clients with mortgage solutions. The Partner Network has lower operating margins because Rocket shares profits with its partners. The Class Period commences on February 25, 2021, when Rocket issued a press release titled, in part, "Rocket Companies Experiences Explosive Growth," which announced Rocket's financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2020. Rocket reported, among other things, closed loan origination volume of $107.2 billion and gain on sale margin of 4.41% for the fourth quarter. Rocket emphasized that it had "[i]ncreased gain on sale margin by 100 basis points year-over-year" during the quarter and "[i]ncreased gain on sale margin by 127 basis points year-over-year to 4.46%" for the full-year period. Throughout the Class Period, Rocket continued to tout its business operations and downplayed the effects of competition on Rocket's gain on sale margins. The truth was revealed on May 5, 2021, when Rocket issued a press release announcing its first quarter results and second quarter outlook. Rocket 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's lowest quarterly gain on sale margin in two years. Following this news, the price of Rocket's Class A common stock dropped from $22.80 per share when the market closed on May 5, 2021 to $19.01 per share when the market closed on May 6, 2021, a nearly 17% decline. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Rocket's 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; (2) Rocket 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's Partner Network operating segment; (3) the adverse trends were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the first six months of 2021; (4) as a result of the above, the favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins had vanished as Rocket's gain on sale margins had returned to levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (5) rather than remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's gain on sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical averages; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' positive statements about Rocket's business operations and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. Rocket investors may, no later than August 30, 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] SANTA ROSA: Papadimitropoulos Labor Suit Transferred to M.D. Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled CONSTANTINO PAPADIMITROPOULOS, MARVIN MENDOZA, and JOYCE VALLONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SANTA ROSA CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-11779, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on June 29, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Tennessee assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-00497 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime, and unfair competition. Santa Rosa Consulting, Inc. is a provider of management consulting services, headquartered in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN McMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Facsimile: (248) 542-6301 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and – Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. Robert E. Turner, IV, Esq. Nathaniel A. Bishop, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com rbryant@jsyc.com rturner@jsyc.com nbishop@jsyc.com - and – Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING, LLP 30 East Seventh St., Suite 2800 St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: jsnodgrass@larsonking.com SCRIPPS HEALTH: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Mitchell, writing for Becker's Health IT, reports that from a former Mayo Clinic physician being sued for accessing patient data to four class-action lawsuits launched on Scripps Health after it faced a ransomware attack, here are the lawsuits and settlements over data breaches making headlines: 1. Ahmad Maher Abdel-Munim Alsughayer, MD, a former physician at Mayo Clinic, is facing a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized computer access and two class-action lawsuits, after allegedly inappropriately accessing patients' protected health information during his employment. 2. Four class-action lawsuits have been filed against San Diego-based Scripps Health after an April 29 malware attack that exposed more than 147,000 patients' health information. 3. Louisville, Ky.-based Humana is being sued over a data breach last fall that exposed the personal information of about 65,000 of its health plan members. 4. A U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska judge preliminarily approved a settlement June 4 over a Nebraska Medicine data breach in fall 2020 that exposed tens of thousands of patients' protected health information. A settlement will be paid to about 140,000 patients whose data was exposed. 5. A data breach on San Antonio-based CaptureRx that affected 1.6 million patients and 170 healthcare providers has sparked two nationwide class-action lawsuits. [GN] SEEKING ALPHA: Winegard Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seeking Alpha Inc. The case is styled as Jay Winegard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Seeking Alpha Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-03750 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Seeking Alpha -- https://seekingalpha.com/ -- is a crowd-sourced content service for financial markets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell Segal, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SEGAL P.C. 1129 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 415-0100 Email: msegal@segallegal.com SKILLZ INC: Glancy Prongay Reminds Investors of July 7 Deadline --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming July 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz Inc. f/k/a Flying Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("Skillz" or the "Company") (NYSE: SKLZ) securities between December 16, 2020 and April 19, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you suffered a loss on your Skillz investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at https://www.glancylaw.com/cases/skillz-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 8, 2021, Wolfpack Research published a report about the Company alleging that the growth speculations from Skillz and its insiders were "entirely unrealistic" and that Skillz's top three games, representing 88% of Skillz's revenue, reported a decline in downloads since the third quarter of 2020. On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $3.00 per share, or 10.9%, to close at $24.45, thereby injuring investors. On April 19, 2021, Eagle Eye Research posted an anonymous report on Twitter in which it claimed that, through the use of providing users with incentive Bonus Payments, "the company likely recognizes substantial non-cash revenue and [] cash revenues may be less than ½ of GAAP revenue." On this news, Skillz's stock price fell $1.00 per share, or 6.61%, to close at $14.11 on April 19, 2021. Shares continued to decline to close at $12.55 on April 20, 2021, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) three games responsible for a majority of Skillz's revenues had declined substantially; (2) Skillz's revenue recognition policy misrepresented the financial condition of the company; (3) unrealistic market growth, specifically in the Android market; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Skillz securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than July 7, 2021 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Harris Sues Over Fruit Drinks' Deceptive Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- DARLENE HARRIS, ANNEMARIE NEWBOLD, and STEPHANIE ESCOBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SNAPPLE BEVERAGE CORP. and KEURIG DR. PEPPER INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-at-00599 (E.D. Cal., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint the Defendants are engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive advertising, labeling, and marketing of Snapple beverage products. The Defendants represent the products as "All Natural" but in reality, the products contain coloring additives. As a result of the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations, the Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed. They would not have purchased the products had they known that the products contained coloring additives. Snapple Beverage Corp. is a beverage company based in Plano, Texas. Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. is an American multinational soft drink company headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Shireen M. Clarkson, Esq. Yana Hart, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com sclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com SOUTHERN THERAPY: Conditional Cert. of Collective Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER BAILEY and LANA LUFT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SOUTHERN THERAPY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-02445-SDG (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying this case as a collective action and authorizing issuance of notice to Potential Class Members. The Plaintiffs pray that this matter be decided in an expedited manner and that the contact information for Potential Class Members be ordered to be disclosed in an expedited manner. The Plaintiffs have moved to certify two classes of current and former employees within one collective action lawsuit, as opposed to filing two separate collective action lawsuits against the same defendant with substantially similar allegations. The Defendant argues that the different job titles and alleged different payment methods should prevent conditional certification of this matter, but that cannot be true. "Uniformity in job description and pay provisions is not warranted" or required in the conditional certification context. Lopez v. STS Consulting Serv., LLC, Case No. 6:16-CV-246-RWS-JDL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188605 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2016). While the Plaintiffs do not claim to have shown "uniformity" between the Plaintiffs and putative class members -- they have shown similarity, and that is what is required under Lusardi and its progeny. Southern Therapy is a therapist-owned rehabilitation company that has served the citizens of West Georgia and East Alabama for over 30 years. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class dated July 5, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hHPZFB at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James M. Loren, Esq. GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A. 1776 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 224 Plantation, FL 33322 Telephone: (954)585-4878 Facsimile: (954)585-4886 E-mail: JLoren@goldbergloren.com The Counsel for the Defendant Southern Therapy Services, Inc., are: Warren R. Hall Jr., Esq. Elizabeth M. Newton, Esq. Kristina K. Griffin, Esq. HALL, GILLIGAN, ROBERTS & SHANLEVER LLP 3340 Peachtree Road, Suite 1900 Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 442-8776 Facsimile: (404) 537-5555 E-mail: whall@hgrslaw.com enewton@hgrslaw.com kgriffin@hgrslaw.com SUN LIFE: Refuses Change to Death Benefit Option C, Insurers Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRIGHTON TRUSTEES, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III and DIAMOND LS TRUST; and BANK OF UTAH, solely as securities intermediary for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST III and DIAMOND LS TRUST; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, Defendant, Case No. 1:21-cv-05644-JPC (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract. The case arises from the Defendant's refusal to grant the Plaintiffs' request to switch to Death Benefit Option C of Sun Life Class Policies. The Defendant's rejection of the request contradicts the contract language saying that the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated policyowners may change Death Benefit option after the first policy year. By this action, the Plaintiffs and Class members seek damages and injunctive and declaratory relief to require Sun Life to abide by the plain terms of the Class Policies it issued and insures, and allow policyowners to change to Death Benefit Option C after the first policy year. Brighton Trustees, LLC is a limited liability company based in New York. Bank of Utah is a federally-insured community bank, with corporate headquarters in Ogden, Utah. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is an insurance company headquartered in Wellesley, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 Facsimile: (212) 336-8340 E-mail: sard@susmangodfrey.com - and – Steven Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com SYNNEX CORPORATION: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Kent Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SYNNEX CORPORATION; KEVIN MURAI; DWIGHT STEFFENSEN; DENNIS POLK; FRED BREIDENBACH; LAURIE SIMON HODRICK; HAU LEE; MATTHEW MIAU; ANN VEZINA; THOMAS WURSTER; DUANE ZITZNER; and ANDREA ZULBERTI, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00888-UNA (D. Del., June 22, 2021) is an action alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which SYNNEX will merge with Tech Data Corporation ("Tech Data") through Tiger Parent (AP) Corporation ("Tiger Parent"), Spire Sub I, Inc. ("Merger Sub I"), and Spire Sub II, LLC ("Merger Sub II") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on March 22, 2021, SYNNEX and Tech Data jointly announced that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 22, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement"). The Merger Agreement provides that the aggregate consideration for all issued and outstanding shares of Tiger Parent will consist of (i) $1.61 billion in cash ($1.1 billion in cash after giving effect to the $500 million equity contribution by Tiger Parent Holdings, L.P. ("Tiger Holdings"), Tiger Parent's sole stockholder and an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("Apollo")), to Tiger Parent, and (ii) 44 million shares of SYNNEX common stock (the "Merger Consideration"). Following completion of the Proposed Transaction, SYNNEX shareholders will own approximately 55% of the combined entity, with Apollo owning approximately 45%. On June 9, 2021, SYNNEX filed a Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that SYNNEX stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information critical to stockholders' decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. The failure to adequately disclose such material information constitutes a violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleges the suit. It is imperative that the material information omitted from the Proxy Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise their corporate suffrage rights. For these reasons and as set forth herein, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin defendants from taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information discussed below is disclosed to the Company's stockholders or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. SYNNEX Corporation provides information technology supply chain services. The Company offers services to original equipment manufacturers and software publishers worldwide. SYNNEX offers product distribution, related logistics, and contract assembly services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. LONG LAW, LLC 3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 729-9100 E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Appeals Denial of Bid to Dismiss Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2021, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021, that the interlocutory appeal of the District Court's decision denying the company's motion to dismiss, is still pending. In December 2013, the first of two antitrust class action lawsuits was filed against Takeda in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a putative class of patients who were prescribed ACTOS. The second class action was filed against Takeda in the same court in April 2015 by a putative class of wholesalers that purchased ACTOS from Takeda. In both actions, plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that Takeda improperly characterized certain patents for ACTOS in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book, which they claim imposed requirements on generic companies that filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications and, in turn, resulted in delayed market entry for generic forms of ACTOS. In October 2019, the District Court denied Takeda's motion to dismiss. Takeda subsequently sought an interlocutory appeal of the District Court's decision which is still pending. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is the largest pharmaceutical company in Asia and one of the top 20 largest pharmaceutical companies in the world by revenue. The company has over 30,000 employees worldwide and achieved 16.2 billion USD in revenue during the 2012 fiscal year. TARENA INT'L: Howard G. Smith Reminds of August 23 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on June 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Tarena International, Inc. ("Tarena" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TEDU) securities or American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Tarena investors have until August 23, 2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion. 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 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 the Company's ADSs, 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. Contacts: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Howard G. Smith, Esquire 215-638-4847 888-638-4847 howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN] TARENA INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Reminds of August 23 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of the securities of Tarena International, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEDU) between August 16, 2016 and November 1, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), of the important August 23, 2021 lead plaintiff deadline. SO WHAT: If you purchased Tarena securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Tarena class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.html http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1961.htmlorcall Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 23, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience or resources. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) 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. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. To join the Tarena class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2094.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. [GN] TEVA PHARMA: Suffolk County Jury to Decide on Opioid Class Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael O'Keeffe, writing for Newsday, reports that the Suffolk County jury to decide if drug manufacturers and distributors are liable for the opioid epidemic that has killed thousands of Long Islanders received its initial instructions from the judge on June 28. Opening arguments in the class-action lawsuit filed by Suffolk and Nassau counties and state Attorney General Letitia James that claims drug manufacturers and distributors aggressively pushed opioid painkillers while minimizing the dangers were scheduled to begin on June 29 at Touro College's Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center in Central Islip. The landmark opioid litigation, before state Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, will be the first of its kind in the nation to go before jurors, who are expected to hear from hundreds of witnesses. "We are going to be able to, for the first time, give our story to the jury of what has happened over the last two decades with respect to the promotion, the marketing of opioids, and the distribution of opioids that has created this massive flood throughout all our communities in the country," said attorney Jayne Conroy of Simmons, Hanly and Conroy, who is representing Suffolk. "We are starting here because the problem is terrible in Suffolk County, in Nassau County and in the State of New York," she added. State and county officials say they hope to hold the companies accountable for the death and misery caused by the opioid epidemic -- and to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars for treatment, recovery and prevention. "Everybody has lost a family member or a friend or a friend's family member," said Hunter Shkolnik of Napoli Shkolnik, an attorney representing Nassau County. "It has been described as a crime of the century, what has happened with the opioid epidemic. We are going to lay it out in this courtroom and this will be the first time all the players and their bad conduct are going to be shown to the people of the United States, not just Long Island." Defendants in the New York opioid litigation include Teva Pharmaceuticals, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Allegan Finance, Cardinal Health, McKesson Corp., and Amerisource Bergen. Another defendant -- Johnson & Johnson -- agreed to an 11th-hour settlement to pay the state up to $230 million, the attorney general's office announced on June 26. The lawsuit could set a precedent for a future national settlement with drug manufacturers and distributors, public health experts and lawyers have said. [GN] TEX MEX II: Onofre Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER ONOFRE PENA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TEX MEX II, INC., doing business as TACOS MATAMOROS RESTAURANT, ARMANDO MUNOZ, RAFAEL HERNANDEZ, and LUIS MARTINEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03697 (E.D.N.Y., June 30, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including unpaid minimum and overtime wages, improper misappropriation of tips, and improper withholding of tips. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a bus person, food runner, and waiter at Tacos Matamoros Restaurant in New York from 2004 to June 7, 2021. Tex Mex II, Inc. is an owner and operator of Tacos Matamoros Restaurant located at 4508 Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 10 Grand Central 155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com TIER 1: Faces McCain Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ SAMUEL MCCAIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIER 1 COMPLETIONS SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:21-cv-02109 (S.D. Tex., June 28, 2021) brings this complaint against the Defendant for its alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendant as a "Wireline Supervisor", claims that the Defendant classified him and other similarly situated manual workers as exempt employee throughout their employment with the Defendant. Although they routinely work in excess of 40 hours, the Defendant did not pay them overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay, the Plaintiff asserts. On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated manual workers, the Plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and all other relief which they are entitled under the FLSA. Tier 1 Completions Solutions, Inc. provides oil and gas services in multiple states including Texas and Oklahoma. [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 TITLEMAX OF DELAWARE: Mayo Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David V. Mayo, for himself and others similarly situated v. TitleMax of Delaware, Inc., Case No. 210502840 was transferred from the Court Of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 2, 2021. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-02964 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. TitleMax -- https://www.titlemax.com/delaware-title-loans/ -- provides title loans, in-store personal loans, and online personal loans as alternative lending solutions for those in Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. The Defendant is represented by: Richard J. Zack, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 3000 Two Logan Square, 18th & Arch Sts Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 981-4726 Email: richard.zack@troutman.com TRANSUNION LLC: Pierce Atwood Attorney Discusses Court Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie A. Conroy, Esq., of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that on June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated 5-4 ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez. In a 27-page decision by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding the certification of a class of 8,185 consumers whom the credit reporting agency TransUnion had mistakenly labeled as potential terrorists and drug traffickers. Of this consumer class, only 1,853 class members' misleading credit reports had been provided to third-parties. The District Court had ruled that all class members had Article III standing to pursue their Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims against TransUnion to recover statutory damages. A federal jury awarded the class $8.1 million in statutory damages and $52 million in punitive damages. On appeal, TransUnion challenged the award on the basis that the entire class lacked constitutional standing to recover. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part. The Court's Decision Taking up the question, the Court clarified its prior holdings concerning the concrete harm that is required to establish Article III standing. Article III defines the scope of constitutional power of federal courts to hear "cases and controversies" in which a plaintiff has a "personal stake." To fall within the ambit of the federal courts' constitutional authority, plaintiffs must show they have suffered a concrete injury in fact. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560–561 (1992). In its recent and often-discussed ruling also concerning the FCRA, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Court noted that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation," and the concrete harm must be one "traditionally" recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts. 578 U. S. 330, 340 (2016). Physical or monetary harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III, and intangible harms—like reputational harms—can also be concrete. Examining the facts of the case at hand, the Court noted that the mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination, traditionally has not provided the basis for recovery in American courts. However, the Court concluded, the 1,853 class members whose inaccurate credit reports were provided to third-parties suffered a harm that was akin to the harm suffered by victims of the traditional tort of defamation. The Court had "no trouble" concluding that these 1,853 class members suffered "a concrete harm that qualifies as an injury in fact" when they were labeled as terrorists in information TransUnion provided to third parties. However, the Court also concluded that the 6,332 plaintiffs whose reports were not provided to third-parties could not demonstrate concrete harm. The Court acknowledged the risk of dissemination could satisfy the concrete-harm requirement in the context of a claim for injunctive relief to prevent release when the risk is imminent and substantial. See Spokeo, 578 U. S., at 341–342 (citing Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013)). But the Court was persuaded by TransUnion that the mere risk of future harm, without more, could not qualify for standing in a suit for damages. The Court also rejected arguments that the entire class had standing to assert claims that TransUnion's mailings were formatted incorrectly and thus violated applicable law, because only lead plaintiff Ramirez was shown to have even opened the mailings, much less to have suffered concrete harm as a result. The Dissenting Opinions Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice Thomas in a dissent that criticized the majority for depriving consumers of a remedy that Congress expressly provided to them. (If Justice Ginsburg were still with us today, this dissent might well have been the majority opinion.) Justice Thomas disputed the majority view that violation of a statutory right could not in and of itself inflict a concrete harm, whether by current or traditional standards. He wrote, "[t]he principle that the violation of an individual right gives rise to an actionable harm was widespread at the founding, in early American history, and in many modern cases." Invoking an 1813 opinion of Justice Story, Justice Thomas countered that "'[W]here the law gives an action for a particular act, the doing of that act imports of itself a damage to the party' because '[e]very violation of a right imports some damage.'" Whittemore v. Cutter. The three dissenting Justices indicate they would have joined Justice Thomas to hold that "injury in law to a private right was enough to create a case or controversy." Justice Kagan wrote a short additional dissent, joined by Justice Breyer and Sotomayor, to emphasize the risk of harm to the class members with inaccurate credit reports that had not been communicated to third parties. She also criticized the majority's holding as one that "transforms standing law from a doctrine of judicial modesty into a tool of judicial aggrandizement" by denying a specific class of plaintiffs their right to bring a suit that was directly provided by Congress, a body that is "better suited than courts to determine when something causes a harm or risk of harm in the real world." The Impact This case parsed critical questions that will shape the future of class action litigation because, as major technology companies who submitted amicus briefs argued, privacy and informational rights lawsuits have proliferated in recent years and tested the bounds of what may constitute concrete harm. The amici urged the Court to clarify that a statutory violation or informational injury alone could not establish standing without a demonstration that concrete, cognizable harm to the class has already occurred, and the Court obliged. Data breach lawsuits are often premised on the imminent risk of identity theft or other potential future or intangible harm, and thus the Court's decision may well limit the ability of data breach victims to assert similar claims in federal court. Plaintiffs will likely respond by reframing their suits as redressing a concrete harm that has already transpired, describing intangible harm as related to a traditionally recognized injury, or seeking injunctive relief to prevent imminent future harm. These plaintiffs and their counsel may also turn to state law remedies in state courts as an alternative to grappling with standing challenges based on the TransUnion ruling in federal court. This decision may also affect any federal data breach legislation, if such legislation is enacted and provides a private right of action, and result in state legislatures and courts continuing to lead in the development of privacy law in this country, filling the void left by Congress and the federal courts. In his closing paragraph of the majority opinion, Justice Kavanaugh distilled centuries of Article III jurisprudence into five words: "No concrete harm, no standing." This decision will not end the growing number of disputes concerning constitutional standing in the federal courts, but it will stand as an obstacle to those who would advocate for expanding our understanding of concrete harm, especially to the substantial risk of imminent future harm. One key debate that we know will survive this opinion concerns whether every class member must demonstrate standing before a court certifies a class, which the majority stated in a footnote it was not addressing. A second ongoing debate is the question of whether a punitive damages award may exceed already substantial statutory damages and actual proven injury by an order of magnitude without violating due process. TransUnion raised this question in its certiorari petition, but the Court granted the petition on the standing issue alone. Thus, both questions survive for another day. The majority and dissenting opinions reveal the central fault line in the modern debate over Article III standing. These are sharp divisions that, given the narrow 5-4 ruling, are far from resolution and will continue to reverberate in federal courts for years to come. [GN] TRANSUNION LLC: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in FCRA Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News, reports that on June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in the case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez that a plaintiff must suffer a "concrete" injury resulting from a defendant's statutory violation of federal law such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to have sufficient standing to sue under Article III of the United States Constitution and that plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit must prove that every class member has standing. "To have Article III standing to sue in federal court, plaintiffs must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered a concrete harm. No concrete harm, no standing," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion that reversed and remanded the case in a narrow 5 to 4 vote. Justice Kavanaugh was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. In the case of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, a man named Sergio Ramirez could not buy a car after TransUnion mistakenly stated on a credit report that his name was found on the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list of suspected terrorists and criminals. Ramirez sued TransUnion on behalf of 8,185 class members for not following "reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" under the FCRA. "No concrete harm, no standing. The 1,853 class members whose credit reports were provided to third-party businesses suffered a concrete harm and thus have standing as to the reasonable-procedures claim. The 6,332 class members whose credit reports were not provided to third-party businesses did not suffer a concrete harm and thus do not have standing as to the reasonable-procedures claim," Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the opinion. "The mere existence of inaccurate information, absent dissemination, traditionally has not provided the basis for a lawsuit in American courts. The plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that the misleading information in the internal credit files itself constitutes a concrete harm. The mere presence of an inaccuracy in an internal credit file, if it is not disclosed to a third party, causes no concrete harm," Justice Kavanaugh concluded in the opinion. In March 2021, SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case that involved alleged FCRA violations to consider whether Article III permitted damages in class action lawsuits when most of the class suffered no actual injury or any similar to the class representative. Some justices suggested the 8,000-member class action lawsuit "should be significantly narrowed – but not tossed out entirely," according to an Argument Analysis on SCOTUSblog.com. The class action lawsuit against TransUnion has a long history. In 2017, a federal jury in California awarded a record $60 million in damages after finding that TransUnion violated the FCRA by awarding each of the 8,185 class members $984.22 in statutory damages and $6,353.08 in punitive damages. In 2020, an appeals court held that the punitive damages award was excessive and reduced the award to $3,936.88 per class member. In May 2016, the Supreme Court ruled in a related case on whether consumers must prove a "concrete" injury in class action lawsuits. The ruling in the case of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins found that consumers must prove "an injury in fact" in class action lawsuits for alleged "bare" violations of a federal statute such as the FCRA. The case involved a man who filed a lawsuit against an online "people search engine" for alleged FCRA violations. The FCRA 15 U.S.C Sec. 1681 was enacted by Congress in 1970 to promote the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies (CRAs), protect consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of inaccurate information in their consumer reports, and regulate the collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information, including consumer credit information. [GN] TUSCALOOSA COUNTY, AL: Beasley Balks at Teachers' Unpaid Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE BEASLEY, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated teachers employed by the Tuscaloosa County School System, Plaintiff v. TUSCALOOSA COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM; THE TUSCALOOSA COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; DR. KERI JOHNSON, in her individual and official capacity as Superintendent of the Tuscaloosa County School System; CHARLES ORR; PORTIA JONES; JOE CALVIN; BILL SQUIRES; RANDY SMALLEY; JAMIE LAKE; and DON PRESLEY, in their individual and official capacity as members of the Tuscaloosa County Board of Education; and DANNY HIGDON, in his individual and official capacity as Chief School Financial Officer of the Tuscaloosa County School System, Defendants, Case No. 7:21-cv-00890-LSC (N.D. Ala., June 29, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants for denial of due process under the Alabama Constitution and the Federal Constitution; breach of contract; mandamus; declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief; and violations of Students First Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case arises from the Defendants' actions to require the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated female certified teachers employed by the Tuscaloosa County Board of Education to teach virtual students, after each female teacher has already taught a full-day of in-school instruction to the on-campus students, and without provision of any time during the workweek and workday to prepare for and teach these additional virtual classes, without any compensation for the significant additional amount of work they are being required to perform, and without any additional time, credit or contribution for this work being provided to the Teachers Retirement System of Alabama (TRSA). Tuscaloosa County School System (TCSS) is a public education system in the State of Alabama that is governed by the Tuscaloosa County Board of Education. Tuscaloosa County Board of Education is a governmental entity that superintends elementary and secondary education in Tuscaloosa County Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruth B. McFarland, Esq. Bryan P. Winter, Esq. WINTER MCFARLAND, LLC 205 McFarland Circle North Tuscaloosa, AL 35406 Telephone: (205) 650-1400 Facsimile: (205) 650-1401 E-mail: ruth@winmclaw.com bwinter@winmclaw.com - and – Heather Leonard, Esq. HEATHER LEONARD PC 2105 Devereux Circle Vestavia Hills, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 977-5421 E-mail: Heather@heatherleonardpc.com - and – Brannon Buck, Esq. BADHAM AND BUCK, LLC 200I Park Place North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-0036 E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com TUTOR PERINI: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Gamez Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- ERNESTO GAMEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION; TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION CIVIL WEST; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21-592485 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., June 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as cement finisher. TUTOR PERINI CORPORATION and its subsidiaries provide general contracting, construction management and design-build services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Kevin Joseph Farnan, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com kfarnan@lelawfirm.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver's Agreement Bars Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh and Cherry Hill at Courier-Post report that an Uber driver's lawsuit against the ride-sharing service has hit a roadblock in federal court here. Edward Siperavage filed the suit after he bought a $71,000 vehicle to participate in the Uber Black SUV program, then was told months later his Chevrolet Tahoe would no longer qualify for the upscale service. The Cherry Hill man's proposed class action suit sought to represent all Uber drivers in New Jersey with similar complaint. But a federal judge agreed with Uber that the dispute should be resolved through private arbitration, rather than in court. A federal judge has said a Cherry Hill man, who sought to bring a class action suit against Uber, must resolve his dispute through arbitration. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman also found Siperavage had given up his right to pursue a class-action claim against Uber. That "clear and conspicuous waiver" occurred when Siperavage signed Uber's Platform Access Agreement in January 2020, Hillman said. The driver sued nine months later. An attorney for Siperavage, John Soumilas of Philadelphia, called the ruling "yet another case where the courthouse doors are closed to aggrieved individuals because of forced arbitration." Soumilas said the arbitration process provides no public hearing for "the facts and circumstances that cause harm to Uber drivers." "And where the same harm affects a large number of individuals in whatever industry, justice for all those affected has become impossible due to forced arbitration," the lawyer said. An attorney for Uber did not respond to requests for comment. According to the suit, Siperavage joined Uber in 2015, driving a Cadillac CTS in the Uber Black program. He bought the Tahoe in December 2018 to boost his income through Uber Black SUV, described by the ride-sharing firm as offering "premium rides . . . . in luxury SUVs." The suit says Siperavage twice confirmed the Tahoe's eligibility before the purchase — in an exchange of messages with an Uber representative and by checking the firm's website. But Uber announced in August 2019 that the Tahoe was among several models being cut from its high-end program. Siperavage, who had expected the Tahoe to remain eligible until 2024, saw his earnings fall by more than $200 per month, his lawsuit said. In arguing for the lawsuit, Soumilas said forced arbitration would be "unconscionable" under New Jersey law. He noted the arbitration provision would require Siperavage to pay "significant" fees and would bar a class action claim. But Hillman said the law required an arbitrator, and not a judge, to hear Siperavage's challenge to the arbitration process. Among other points, the judge also noted New Jersey law "has declined to impose any per se rule against" class action waivers. [GN] UBIQUITI INC: Kahn Swick & Foti Reminds of July 19 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors of pending deadlines in the following securities class action lawsuits: Peloton Interactive, Inc. (NASDAQ:PTON) Class Period: 9/11/2020 - 5/5/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: June 28, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-pton/ Ubiquiti Inc. (NYSE:UI) Class Period: 1/11/2021 - 3/30/2021 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: July 19, 2021 SECURITIES FRAUD To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-ui/ RLX Technology Inc. (NYSE:RLX) Class Period: Shares issued in connection with the January 2021 initial public stock offering Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline: August 9, 2021 MISLEADING PROSPECTUS To learn more, visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-rlx/ If you purchased shares of the above companies and would like to discuss your legal rights and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner, Lewis Kahn, toll-free at 1-877-515-1850, via email (Lewis.Kahn@KSFcounsel.com), or via the case links above. If you wish to serve as a Lead Plaintiff in the class action, you must petition the Court on or before the Lead Plaintiff Motion deadline. About KSF KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors - in seeking to recover investment losses due to corporate fraud and malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contact: Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com 1-877-515-1850 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 [GN] UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS: Zuniga FLSA Suit Removed to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled JOSE ISMAEL ZUNIGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS INC., UNFORGETTABLE COATINGS OF IDAHO LLC, DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-21-835257-C, was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on June 29, 2021. The Clerk of Court for the District of Nevada assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01221 to the proceeding. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Unforgettable Coatings Inc. is a manufacturer of coatings, with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Unforgettable Coatings of Idaho LLC is a manufacturer of coatings, with its principal place of business in Las Vegas, Nevada. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paul T. Trimmer, Esq. Lynne K. McChrystal, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 300 S. 4th Street, Suite 900 Las Vegas, NV 89101 UNIFIN INC: McBride Files FDCPA Suit in D. Delaware --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unifin, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Monique McBride, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Unifin, Inc., Jefferson Capital Systems LLC, John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:21-cv-00980-UNA (D. Del., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. UNIFIN, Inc. -- https://unifininc.com/ -- is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig N. Garibian, Esq. GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1010 Bancroft Parkway, Suite 22 Wilmington, DE 19805 Phone: (215) 326-9179 Email: ag@garibianlaw.com UNITED DEBT: Benitez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Debt Settlement, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Mariano Benitez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Debt Settlement, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 3:21-cv-01204-H-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 1, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. United Debt Settlement -- https://unitedsettlement.com/ -- consists of hard-working people on a mission to help others face their debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (323) 306-4234 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com USAA CASUALTY: Class Certification Filing Deadline Extended ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAHAZEL BLACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:21-cv-01363-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order that the deadline for the Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification shall be extended to a later date to be set by the Court upon consideration of the parties Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan. USAA is an insurance company. A copy of the Court's order dated July 2, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hgZa0T at no extra charge.[CC] UZID LLC: Tenzer-Fuchs Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against UZID LLC. The case is styled as Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. UZID LLC, Case No. 2:21-cv-03732 (E.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Uzid -- https://uzid.com/ -- offers one of the largest selection of cell phone accessories online.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shalom, Esq. SHALOM LAW, PLLC 105-13 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: (718) 971-9474 Email: jonathan@shalomlawny.com VERMONT HOTEL: Ex Plaintiff Calls Suit a Necessary 1st Recognition ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Hoey at mychamplainvalley.com reports that there's new information concerning Vermont Legal Aid's class-action lawsuit against the state of Vermont, even though the suit is currently on pause. The suit has to do with a June decision by Gov. Phil Scott's administration to tighten the eligibility requirements homeless Vermonters must meet for emergency housing in hotels and motels. "I think (the class-action suit) is a necessary first recognition that there have been some areas where policy and process and legal process has not been followed," Tina Gray-Rand said. She was due to lose her emergency housing at the beginning of the month until judicial order put a stop to that. Tina is staying in the Pierre Motel in downtown Barre. "I'm not able to work full-time right now," she said. "After coming into the hotel process, PTSD was triggered. There's been -- it's a lot of stress, on top of rebuilding your own life." Tina, and about 700 other Vermonters with disabilities in hotel housing, need the state to officially verify their disability. If it happens, their stay is extended for 12 more weeks. Tina got that to happen. Her stay at the Pierre Motel has been extended through at least September 23. However, it also means she's no longer a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit. Her name was on the court filings. "The old criteria of housing -- I think it's probably outdated and archaic," Tina said. "This could be a good time, actually, to look at what really might work." In late June, Vermont lawmakers passed a bill setting up a stronger enforcement system for rental property safety. That system would have included creating a statewide rental unit registry. Gov. Phil Scott vetoed that measure, writing in part: "Most agree we suffer from a critical housing shortage for middle income, low income and homeless Vermonters, but the solution is not more regulation. Instead, we need to invest in new and rehabilitated housing in every corner of our state." Tina says she supports the governor and knows full well that his administration has had to act quickly and decisively during the pandemic. Even so, she remains concerned about the state's direction. "I don't think it says well of our society to say that we were going to address the homelessness and then to be putting people out and creating tent cities like we are," she said. Local 22 & Local 44 News has also reached out to the Vermont Agency of Human Services -- the defendant in the class-action lawsuit -- for comment. As of this writing, agency officials had not replied. [GN] VIRGIN GALACTIC: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of July 27 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. ("Virgin Galactic") (NYSE: SPCE) between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 2021. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17230&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. Virgin Galactic Holdings, Inc. NEWS - SPCE NEWS CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (i) for accounting purposes, Social Capital Hedosophia Holdings Corp.'s ("SCH") warrants were required to be treated as liabilities rather than equities; (ii) Virgin Galactic had deficient disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iii) as a result, the Company improperly accounted for SCH warrants that were outstanding at the time of the business combination; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Virgin Galactic, you have until July 27, 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 Virgin Galactic securities between October 26, 2019 and April 30, 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/virgin-galactic-holdings-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17230&wire=5 or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for shareholders who have been wronged by corporations. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20 years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S. and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing investors in securities litigation with a track record of recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi & Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS") SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country, and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 www.zlk.com [GN] VIRGINIA: Makes Progress, But Thousands Still Waiting on Benefits ----------------------------------------------------------------- wtvr.com reports that new details regarding the class-action lawsuit filed in May 2021 against the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) showed that while the agency has made significant progress paying those who have spent months waiting for benefits, there are still tens of thousands of Virginians waiting. A new status report filed by Legal Aid groups and its pro bono partners showed since May, the VEC has shrunk the backlog of around 90,000 people waiting on benefits to 40,000. However, the groups estimated over the past two months, around 30,000 new claims have been added to the backlog. This means the agency has only cleared up around 20,000 claims. "A lot of folks are still out there waiting, wondering what's going on and needing emergency aid," Pat Levy-Lavelle, an attorney representing five of the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, said. The report also noted the VEC identified 4,189 claimants that had been waiting to receive benefits since March through June 2020. While the agency just released payments to those individuals at the end of last month, Levy-Lavelle said this does not take back the damage caused as these Virginians waited more than a year without relief. Legal Aid identified two other problematic areas where it appeared benefits were illegally cut off by the VEC: Cases where claimants were asked to provide proof of employment Cases where claimants were asked to complete a proof of identity process The proof of identity process was launched at the end of May through a website called ID.me. Some Virginians, like Charles Stallings, of Chesterfield, reported their benefits were stopped before receiving a link to upload documents to ID.me. "It's just not right," Stallings said. He said his benefits were cut off in May for no reason. The following week, he said he received an email that asked him to reapply for benefits and upload his identification to ID.me. "I uploaded the documents, and then something on the screen came on to say that we will get back with you via email or phone within the next week," said Stallings. "Nobody has contacted me." After scheduling two phone appointments with the VEC and contacting ID.me, Stallings said he still can't get answers. "If you adhere to their protocol and do everything that they've asked you to do, what more is there to say?" he asked. "You're at the mercy of VEC." Legal Aid groups believe the VEC needs to speed up the payment process for backlogged claims. "It seems in a lot of cases, the VEC is cutting people off and asking questions later," Levy-Lavelle said. "We think federal guidance is fairly clear that if people are getting benefits, they're supposed to keep getting them until there's due process." The VEC has previously noted it was ramping up staff, so it could hit the judge's requirement of 20,000 claims processed a week by August. "I know that they have said that they want to hit that 20,000 figure, the order requires it," said Levy-Lavelle. "I certainly hope and anticipate that they will." If the VEC were to miss the mark and fall short of 20,000 claims a week in August, Levy-Lavelle said they would inform the judge. When asked to update its staffing and processing of claims, a spokesperson for the VEC replied via email. "I have no comment," the email read. [GN] W. R. GRACE & CO: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Finger Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN FINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. W. R. GRACE & CO.; HUDSON LA FORCE; MARK E. TOMKINS; ROBERT F. CUMMINGS, JR.; DIANE H. GULYAS; HENRY R. SLACK; JULIE FASONE HOLDER; CHRISTOPHER J. STEFFEN; and SHLOMO YANAI, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01055 (C.D. Cal., June 23, 2021) is an action against the Defendants alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), seeking to enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which W. R. Grace & Co. ("Grace" or the "Company") will be acquired by Standard Industries Holdings Inc. ("Standard") through Gibraltar Acquisition Holdings LLC ("Parent"), and Gibraltar Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub") (the "Proposed Transaction"). According to the complaint, on June 21, 2021, Grace filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy Statement, which recommends that Grace stockholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, omits or misrepresents material information concerning, among other things: (i) the financial projections for Grace; (ii) the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinions provided by the Company's financial advisors, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC ("Goldman") and Moelis & Company LLC ("Moelis"); and (iii) Goldman's potential conflicts of interest. Allegedly, the Defendants authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Unless remedied, Grace's public stockholders will be irreparably harmed because the Proxy Statement's material misrepresentations and omissions prevent them from making a sufficiently informed voting or appraisal decision on the Proposed Transaction. W.R. Grace & Co. supplies specialty chemical, construction, and container products. The Company focus on catalysts and silica, construction, fine chemical, and molecular sieves, and other products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel E. Elkins, Esq. WEISSLAW LLP 9100 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 725 E. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 208-2800 Facsimile: (310) 209-2348 E-mail: jelkins@weisslawllp.com WALLGREENS BOOTS: Bid for Summary Judgment in WCERS Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the motion for summary judgment filed in Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No. 1:15-cv-3187, is pending. On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co. (Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System v. Walgreen Co. et al., No. 1:15-cv-3187 (N.D. Ill.)). The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made regarding its former fiscal 2016 goals. A motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint filed on August 17, 2015 was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2016. The court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification on March 29, 2018 and plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 19, 2018. A motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted in part and denied in part on September 23, 2019. Fact discovery and expert discovery have concluded. Motions for summary judgment have been fully briefed. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. WALLGREENS BOOTS: Rite Aid Shareholders Securities Suit Underway ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2021, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2021, that the company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by purported Rite Aid shareholders. On December 11, 2017, purported Rite Aid shareholders filed an amended complaint in a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania arising out of transactions contemplated by the merger agreement between the Company and Rite Aid. The amended complaint alleged that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding the transactions. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 15, 2019. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses, discovery commenced, and the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In October and December 2020, two separate purported Rite Aid Shareholders filed lawsuits in the same court as the M.D. Pa. action opting out of the class in the M.D. Pa. action making nearly identical allegations as those in the M.D. Pa. action (the "Direct Actions"). On December 24, 2020, the parties to the Direct Actions filed a joint stipulation to stay the Direct Actions until the earlier of (a) 30 days after the entry of an order resolving any pre-trial dispositive motions in the M.D. Pa. action, or (b) 30 days after the entry of an order of final approval of any settlement of the M.D. Pa. action. The court so ordered the joint stipulation on December 28, 2020. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. operates as a pharmacy-led health and wellbeing company. It operates through three segments: Retail Pharmacy USA, Retail Pharmacy International, and Pharmaceutical Wholesale. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is based in Deerfield, Illinois. ********* 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 ***