/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/211111.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, November 11, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 220
Headlines
3M COMPANY: Eli Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Faces Gagnon Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
3M COMPANY: Wood Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Agreement Reached in CCERF Initiated Class Suit
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Glennon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
APERION CARE: Removes Winters et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois
AXOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Junk Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Pending
AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Suit vs BofI Pending
BOOT BARN: Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway in California
BORINQUEN SUPER: Jimenez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
CARNIVAL PLC: Class Action Waiver Clause Deemed Unenforceable
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Zagami Sues Over Nearly 50% Drop of Stock Price
CITIBANK NA: Greenberg Seeks Interest on Escrow Account
CLOVERKLE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dzoba Alleges
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Board's Election Maneuver
CONAGRA BRANDS: 9th Cir. Partially Revives Frozen Chicken Lawsuit
CULLEN PARTNERS: Underpays Food Runners, Refugio et al. Claim
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 20 Deadline
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
DEMI CO: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION: 3rd Cir. Reverses Class Action Ruling
EQT CORPORATION: Ross Natural Gas Royalty Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
EVENTBRITE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit
FACEBOOK INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
FACEBOOK INC: Wants Docs in Antitrust Class Action Returned
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Brokop Putative Class Suit Ongoing
FLORIDA: Class Action v. Juvenile Justice Dep't Can Proceed
GAOTU TECHEDU: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 20 Deadline
GEO GROUP: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
GET YOKD: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: $129MM Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 24
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Removes Levine Suit to D. Massachusetts
HOEGH LNG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
HOLLI SULLIVAN: Faces Suit Over Limits on Contributions to PACs
HONEST COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
HOSPICE OF ST. FRANCIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mallon Alleges
INDEPENDENT BANK: Summary Judgment Bid in BOH Merger Suit Pending
JOHN KELLY FOODS: Morales Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
JOHNSON HALLER: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
JUUL LABS: Baldwin County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Direct Purchaser Class Suit
KNAUF GIPS: Homeowners Slams Gypsum Drywall Defect
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hecht Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to W.D. Pa.
KPMG INTERNATIONAL: Faces New ERISA Class Action in New Jersey
KRAFT HEINZ: Dismissal of Osborne Suit Under Appeal
KRAFT HEINZ: Loses Bid to Junk Union Asset Management Class Suit
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
LYFT INC: Dec. 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
LYFT INC: December 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Class Certification of ATM Surcharge Suits
MASTERCARD INC: Bid for Class Status in TCPA Class Suit Pending
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over Lack of COVID Protective Measures
MEREDITH COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Personal Info
MEREDITH CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
MEREDITH CORPORATION: McKinney Files Suit in E.D. California
MILAN LASER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacobson Suit Alleges
NEW PARK TOWER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Romero Claims
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Action
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S: Faces Employees Privacy Class Action
RAYDON CORP: Judge Inks $2.4MM ERISA Class Action Settlement
RENREN INC: $300MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 9
RESTORE IT: Lezcano Seeks Restoration Employees' Unpaid Overtime
RUSSIA: Children of the Gulag Files Class Action v. State of Duma
SHAW BUTANE: Faces Lee Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SLOW LORIS: Encarnacion Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
SOLARI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Welch Suit Claims
T-MOBILE US: Files Bid to Pause Proposed Data Breach Class Suit
TAP WORLDWIDE: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
TOOTSIE ROLL: Judge Tosses Class Action Lawsuit Over Candy Boxes
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TURCIOS GROUP: Faces Villa Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
TURNER'S OPERATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Claims
UNITED STATES: DOT Opposes Class Certif. Bid in Hiring Bias Case
US FOODS: Magana Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
VOLTAGE PICTURES: International Lawyers Discuss Court Ruling
[*] New Zealand Class Actions, Litigation Funding Continue to Grow
*********
3M COMPANY: Eli Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
FERGUSON ELI and JO ANN ELI, his wife, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs 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-03631-RMG
(D.S.C., November 4, 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, wantonness, and per quod claim.
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 firefighter trainees who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products. Plaintiff Ferguson Eli
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. He
relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of
the products, the suit says.
As a result of the alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF
products, Mr. Eli 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.
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 Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Faces Gagnon Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
TONY GAGNON, 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-03629-RMG
(D.S.C., November 4, 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 Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. 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. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, the Plaintiff asserts.
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.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
3M COMPANY: Wood Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN WOOD, 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-03630-RMG
(D.S.C., November 4, 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 Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. 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. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was allegedly diagnosed with testicular cancer as a
result of his exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.
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:
Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER P.A.
125 Half Mile Road, Suite 100
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: (732) 855-6060
Facsimile: (732) 726-4860
ALNYLAM PHARMA: Agreement Reached in CCERF Initiated Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the parties
in the class action suit initiated the Chester County Employees
Retirement Fund, have reached an agreement in principle to resolve
the matter.
On September 12, 2019, the Chester County Employees Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
filed a purported securities class action complaint for violation
of federal securities laws against the company, certain of its
current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters of
the company's November 14, 2017 public stock offering, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.
On November 7, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, or the
New York Complaint.
The New York Complaint is brought on behalf of an alleged class of
those who purchased the company's securities pursuant and/or
traceable to the company's November 14, 2017 public stock offering.
The New York Complaint purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and generally alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by, among other things, making material
misstatements or omissions concerning the results of the company's
APOLLO Phase 3 clinical trial of patisiran.
The plaintiff seeks, among other things, the designation of the
action as a class action, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, rescissory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and other relief as the
court deems appropriate.
All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the New York
Complaint in its entirety on December 20, 2019. On November 2,
2020, the Supreme Court of the State of New York entered a Decision
and Order denying defendants' motion to dismiss.
In November 2020, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the
Supreme Court's decision to the Appellate Division of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York for the First Department. In April
2021, the First Department entered a Decision and Order affirming
in part and reversing in part the Supreme Court's decision.
In June 2021, defendants filed a motion in the First Department
seeking reargument or, in the alternative, for leave to appeal to
the New York Court of Appeals. In August 2021, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to resolve the matter.
Proceedings in the First Department are adjourned until February
2022 pending final approval of any settlement.
Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses
on discovering, developing, and commercializing RNA interference
(RNAi) therapeutics. The company was founded in 2002 and is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Glennon Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Glennon and Thomas E. Overby, Jr., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No.
4:21-cv-00141 (E.D. Va., Nov. 5, 2021), is brought arising out of
the Defendant's systemic, company-wide policy of failing to pay its
employees for all hours worked and for overtime hours worked at the
appropriate overtime rate, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and the Virginia Wage Payment
Act.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant has maintained a corporate
policy of failing to compensate the Plaintiffs for all mandatory
pre- and/or post-shift work. In particular, the Defendant requires
the Plaintiffs to arrive to work prior to the scheduled start time
of Plaintiffs' shifts, in order to perform a litany of tasks
necessary to perform the Plaintiffs' jobs, including preparatory
work, maintenance work, cleaning work, and paperwork, among other
tasks. As for the end of Plaintiffs' shift, the Plaintiffs are
required to perform cleaning work, and numerous other tasks to
properly wind down the Plaintiffs' shifts. The Plaintiffs are
required to perform this work in order to be prepared to carry out
their job responsibilities when they arrive at job sites. This work
was required to be completed by the Defendants and the failure of
the Plaintiffs to perform this work could result in warnings,
discipline, and ultimately, termination. Notably, Defendant only
compensates Plaintiffs for their scheduled shifts and does not
compensate Plaintiffs for the required pre- and/or post-shift work.
The Plaintiffs routinely work 40 hours or more per week, without
accounting for pre-and/or post-shift work. When pre- and/or
post-shift work are included, even those Plaintiffs who are
scheduled and paid for only 40 hours or less per week, actually
work over 40 hours per week without being compensated for all of
their time worked or compensated at the proper overtime rate for
hours worked over 40 per week. The Defendant's practice of failing
to compensate Plaintiffs for all pre and post-shift work violates
the Plaintiffs' rights under the FLSA, VMWA, and VWPA, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant in the Defendant's
Williamsburg brewery.
The Defendant operates a brewery located in the city of
Williamsburg in the Commonwealth of Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq.
ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Phone: (301) 587-9373
Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com
- and -
Francisco Mundaca, Esq.
Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq.
THE SPIGGLE LAW FIRM, PLLC
4830A 31st St., S., Suite A
Arlington, VA 22206
Phone: (202) 449-8527
Facsimile: (202) 517-9179
Email: fmundaca@spigglelaw.com
rtucci@spigglelaw.com
APERION CARE: Removes Winters et al. Suit to N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
The Defendants in the case, KEAMBER WINTERS and DAWN MEEGAN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. APERION CARE, INC.; APERION CARE MORTON VILLA, LLC;
APERION CARE MORTON TERRACE, LLC; APERION CARE GALESBURG NORTH,
LLC; ISLAND CITY REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC, d/b/a APERION CARE
WILMINGTON; and DOES DEFENDANTS 1-100, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (Case No. 2019-CH-06579) to the United States District
Court for the Northern Illinois on October 20, 2021. The clerk of
the United States District Court for the Northern Illinois assigned
Case No. 1:21-cv-05584.
The case is brought over alleged unlawful timekeeping method.
The Defendants are represented by:
Jamie L. Filipovic, Esq.
Timothy M. Hayes, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER LLC
One East Wacker Drive, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: (312) 422-6100
Fax: (312) 422-6110
Firm No. 60938
E-mail: jfilipovic@ohaganmeyer.com
thayes@ohaganmeyer.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
224 South Michigan Ave., Suite 300
Chicago, IL 60604
Tel: (312) 763-6880
E-mail: caffarelli@caffarelli.com
lpeeters@caffarelli.com
AXOS FINANCIAL: Bid to Junk Mandalevy Putative Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss the putative lass action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI
Holding, Inc., et al., is pending.
On April 3, 2017, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its
Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit styled Mandalevy v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and
brought in United States District Court for the Southern District
of California.
The Mandalevy Case seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.
The complaint in the Mandalevy Case alleges a class period that
differs from that alleged in the First Class Action, and that the
Company and other named defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose wrongful conduct
that was alleged in a March 2017 media article.
The Mandalevy Case has not been consolidated into the First Class
Action.
On December 7, 2018, the Court entered a final order granting the
defendants' motion and dismissing the Mandalevy Case with
prejudice.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and the Court
took the matter under advisement.
On November 3, 2020, the Court issued a ruling affirming in part
and reversing in part the District Court's Order dismissing the
Class Action Second Amended Complaint.
The defendants filed a petition for rehearing en banc on November
17, 2020, which petition was denied on December 16, 2020.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the remanded complaint on
February 19, 2021.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.
AXOS FINANCIAL: Petition for Rehearing in Suit vs BofI Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Axos Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the petition for a
rehearing with respect to a decision in the suit entitled, In re
BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case no:
3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC, is pending.
On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case").
On November 3, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a second
putative class action lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc.,
et al, and also brought in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Hazan Case").
On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation, and
the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other named
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by
failing to disclose wrongful conduct that was alleged in a
complaint filed in connection with a wrongful termination of
employment lawsuit filed on October 13, 2015 (the "Employment
Matter") and that as a result the Company's statements regarding
its internal controls, as well as portions of its financial
statements, were false and misleading.
On March 21, 2018, the Court entered a final order dismissing the
Class Action with prejudice.
Subsequently, the plaintiff appealed, the Court overturned the
dismissal and the Company is preparing a petition for a rehearing.
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
Axos Financial, Inc. operates as the holding company for BofI
Federal Bank that provides consumer and business banking products
in the United States. The company offers deposits products,
including consumer and business checking, demand, savings, and time
deposit accounts. Axos Financial, Inc. was incorporated in 1999 and
is based in San Diego, California.
BOOT BARN: Wage-and-Hour Suit Underway in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit related to violations of
California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods and rest breaks,
and an alleged violation of the suitable seating requirement as per
California Labor Law among other things.
On February 27, 2020, one employee, on behalf of themself and all
other similarly situated employees, filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company, which includes claims for penalties under
California's Private Attorney General Act, in the Sacramento County
Superior Court, Case No. 34-2019-00272000-CU-OE-GDS, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal periods
and rest breaks, and an alleged violation of the suitable seating
requirement as per California Labor Law among other things.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and penalties.
The Company intends to defend this claim vigorously.
As of September 25, 2021, the Company has recorded an amount for
the estimated probable loss, which is not material to the condensed
consolidated financial statements.
Boot Barn said, "Depending on the actual outcome of pending
litigation, charges in excess of such recorded amount could be
recorded in the future, which may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."
Boot Barn Holdings, Inc., a lifestyle retail chain, operates
specialty retail stores in the United States. The company's
specialty retail stores offer western and work-related footwear,
apparel, and accessories for men, women, and kids. The company was
formerly known as WW Top Investment Corporation and changed its
name to Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. in June 2014. Boot Barn Holdings,
Inc. was founded in 1978 and is based in Irvine, California.
BORINQUEN SUPER: Jimenez Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GUADALUPE JIMENEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BORINQUEN SUPER MARKET, INC. d/b/a BORINQUEN
SUPER MARKET, and MARCO CASTILLO, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-08620 (S.D.N.Y., October 20, 2021) brings this complaint
alleging the Defendants of failure to properly pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiff, who was employed by the Defendants to perform duties
in the Produce section from January 15, 2018 until October 16,
2021, claims that the Defendants did not appropriately compensate
her for the hours she worked over 48 per week. Despite regularly
working more than 40 hours per week, the Defendants only paid her a
flat rate regardless of the number of hours she has worked. In
addition, the Defendants allegedly did not provide her with any
document or other statement accounting for his actual worked, as
well as with any notice of his rate of pay and other information.
Borinquen Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Borinquen Supermarket operates
one supermarket in the Bronx area of New York. Marco Castillo is
the owner. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina F. Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, PC
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (800) 933-5620
www.LuchaPorTusDerechos.com
CARNIVAL PLC: Class Action Waiver Clause Deemed Unenforceable
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Nettleton, Esq., and Cate Sendall, Esq., of Addisons,
reported that does your business have contracts which include a
class action waiver clause? Depending on the circumstances, the
clause may be unenforceable in Australia.
The Federal Court of Australia recently determined that a class
action waiver clause was void on the basis that it was an 'unfair
contract term' in breach of section 23 of the Australian Consumer
Law (ACL) (Carnival decision)1 and was, as a result, unenforceable.
The Carnival decision is significant because it suggests that the
Australian approach to class action waiver clauses may deviate from
overseas jurisdictions where clauses of this nature are recognised
and enforced, such as the USA.
Although the judgement stressed that a different conclusion may be
reached in different circumstances, international product and
service providers with distributors and/or customers in Australia
should be aware of the potential implications of the Carnival
decision where class action waiver clauses have been included in
the standard terms and conditions in contracts offered to
Australian consumers.
Background
Class action waiver clauses require a party to waive their right to
join a class action.
The Ruby Princess cruise ship departed from Sydney in March 2020
for New Zealand and returned just days later following the outbreak
of Coronavirus on the ship. Class action proceedings were commenced
by passengers (including executors and close family) (collectively
the Applicants) against Carnival plc, the time charterer of the
vessel, and Princess Cruise Lines Ltd, the owner and operator of
the vessel (collectively the Respondents). The Applicants alleged
that the outbreak resulted from negligence and a failure to take
appropriate measures to ensure that passengers were safe and
protected from contracting the virus on the ship. The proceedings
included claims that the Respondents breached the ACL stemming from
a failure to provide a "safe, relaxing, and pleasurable" holiday as
advertised, and for false, misleading, and deceptive conduct by
advertising a "safe, relaxing, and pleasurable" holiday.
Each passenger was subject to contractual terms and conditions
(being US, UK or Australian terms and conditions) that applied to
their booking. The US terms and conditions, which contained a class
action waiver clause (the Clause), applied to approximately 25% of
passengers (US terms passengers). The Respondents sought to rely on
the Clause to permanently stay the claims of the US terms
passengers (on the basis that they had waived their right to
commence class action proceedings).
The Respondents' application for a stay of the proceedings was
unsuccessful and the class action has been listed for trial in
October 2022.
Decision
The Applicants contended, among other things, that the Clause was
an 'unfair' term and, as such, was void under section 23 of the
ACL, which provides that a term of a standard form consumer
contract is void if it is unfair. A term can be deemed 'unfair' if
the following criteria are met if it:
-- would cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights
and obligations arising under the contract;
-- would not be reasonably necessary to protect legitimate
interests; and
-- would cause detriment to a party if relied on.
The Court accepted the Applicants' arguments.
In coming to the decision that the Clause was unfair and therefore
void, the Court noted that:
the Respondents had no legitimate interest in requiring US terms
passengers to commence individual proceedings. Rather, relying on
the Clause would cause detriment by preventing the passengers from
obtaining the benefit of funded representative proceedings and
forcing them to commence their own individual proceeding where the
cost of doing so would likely exceed the value of their claim;
there were thousands of consumer contracts for the cruise.
Accordingly, by including the Clause, this caused a significant
imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations, with individual
passengers being prevented from exercising their legal rights where
they did not have the resources to commence individual proceedings;
and
the Clause was not sufficiently "transparent" because it did not
use reasonably plain language and it was not readily available to
the passengers at the time of entering into the contract.
What does this mean?
In light of this decision and depending on the circumstances, a
class action waiver clause may not prevent class action proceedings
from being commenced or prevent group members from joining those
proceeding (even if they live overseas).
Standard terms and conditions in use in Australia (particularly if
based on terms and conditions used in other markets, such as the
USA) should be reviewed to ensure compliance with the ACL,
particularly if they contain class action waiver clauses.
Similarly, any terms seeking to limit a consumer's litigation
options (such as requiring mandatory arbitration to occur overseas)
for a breach of contract or a breach of the statutory guarantees in
the ACL, should also be reviewed to check enforceability. [GN]
CASSAVA SCIENCES: Zagami Sues Over Nearly 50% Drop of Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY ZAGAMI, derivatively on behalf of CASSAVA SCIENCES, INC.,
Plaintiff v. REMI BARBIER, ERIC J. SCHOEN, JAMES W. KUPIEC, NADAV
FRIEDMANN, MICHAEL MARSMAN, ROBERT Z. GUSSIN, MICHAEL J. O'DONNELL,
SANFORD R. ROBERTSON, and PATRICK J. SCANNON, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00998 (W.D., Tex., November 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties,
unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of
corporate assets, and violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the complaint, the Individual Defendants caused the
Cassava Sciences, Inc. to submit manipulated data to the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) and made, or caused the company to
make, materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public concerning the accuracy and reliability of data the company
was holding out as demonstrating the efficacy of its lead
therapeutic product candidate called simufilam from September 14,
2020 through August 27, 2021. Specifically, the statements failed
to disclose, inter alia, that: (1) the quality and integrity of the
data used to support claims of simufilam's efficacy was overstated;
(2) the data the company held out as supporting the efficacy of its
product candidates was manipulated; (3) the company's experiments
using postmortem human brain tissue was contrary to a basic
understanding of neurobiology; (4) the biomarker analysis for
patients treated with simufilam was manipulated to show simufilam
was effective; (5) Quanterix had not interpreted the biomarker test
results for the tests which it had conducted for the company, nor
had it prepared the charts the company was using in its
presentations on simufilam's effectiveness; (6) due to the
foregoing, the company was under an increased likelihood of facing
regulatory scrutiny regarding simufilam; and (7) the company failed
to maintain internal controls. As a result of the foregoing,
Cassava's public statements regarding simufilam were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times, says the suit.
When the truth emerged, the company's share price dropped from
$117.83 at close on August 24, 2021, to close August 25, 2021 at
$80.86, approximately a 31.4% one-day decrease in value. It
continuously declined by $12.51 per share, approximately 17.7%,
from its August 26, 2021 closing price of $70.85 per share to close
August 27, 2021 at $58.34, added the suit.
Cassava Sciences, Inc. is a biotechnology corporation based in
Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Braden M. Wayne, Esq.
Stuart L. Cochran, Esq.
STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY PLLC
12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
Dallas, TX 75230
Telephone: (972) 387-4040
E-mail: stuart@swclaw.com
braden@swclaw.com
- and –
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
- and –
Timothy Brown, Esq.
THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (516) 922-5427
Facsimile: (516) 344-6204
E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net
CITIBANK NA: Greenberg Seeks Interest on Escrow Account
-------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Greenberg and Kim Greenberg, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Citibank, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-08740 (S.D. N.Y., October 26, 2021),
seeks damages, restitution and reimbursement, as well as injunctive
relief, pursuant to New York General Obligations Law, New York
General Business Law, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Glenn and Kim Greenberg, husband and wife and co-mortgagors, own a
residential property located in Merrick, New York that was the
collateral for a mortgage loan made to them by Citibank. The
Greenbergs claim that they paid thousands of dollars into an escrow
account maintained by Citibank and its agent, affiliate and
subsidiary, CitiMortgage, Inc. yet received no interest on those
payments. They claim that said funds paid into an escrow account
remain the borrower's money and New York law requires all mortgage
investing institutions to pay at least 2% interest on such pursuant
to NY General Obligations Law. Citbank, therefore, breached their
mortgage agreement. [BN]
Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Giskan, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel. (646) 964-9644
Email: ogiskan@gslawny.com
- and -
Joseph S. Tusa, Esq.
TUSA P.C.
P.O. Box 566
55000 Main Road, 2nd Fl.
Southold, NY 11971
Tel. (631) 407-5100
Email: joseph.tusapc@gmail.com
CLOVERKLE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Dzoba Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
GAYLA DZOBA; and SHELBY WALLS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CLOVERKLE ENTERPRISES,
LLC; and SCOTT McCORKLE, Defendants, Case No. 5:21-cv-01427-MHH
(N.D. Ala., Oct. 25, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as pet groomers.
CLOVERKLE ENTERPRISES, LLC do business as a franchisee of Aussie
Pet Mobile. The company offers pet grooming service that offers a
full service grooming experience for pets. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Courtney Lowery, Esq.
SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
Little Rock, AK 72211
Telephone: (800) 615-4946
Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
Email: courtney@sanfordlawfirm.com
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Board's Election Maneuver
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FRANCHI, directly on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated stockholders of COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORP., Plaintiff v. FRED KORNBERG; JUDY CHAMBERS; LISA LESAVOY;
YACOV A. SHAMASH; LAWRENCE J. WALDMAN; EDWIN KANTOR; IRA KAPLAN;
ROBERT G. PAUL; WHITE HAT CAPITAL PARTNERS LP; and MAGNETAR CAPITAL
LLC; and COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., Defendants, Case No.
2021-0919 (Del. Ch., Oct. 25, 2021) is an action arising against
Comtech incumbent directors' unlawful deployment of a "white squire
defense" to entrench themselves in office when faced with a serious
proxy contest.
According to the complaint, on October 4, 2021, Comtech announced
that it would add Michael D. Porcelain ("Porcelain") to the Board
at the end of the year. Porcelain has served as a member of senior
management since 2002 and will be taking over as CEO from Fred
Kornberg who will remain on the Board as non-executive Chairman.
The Board allegedly resorted to a white squire defense that
Outerbridge Capital Management, LLC has publicly labeled as a
"blatant entrenchment maneuver." Specifically, Comtech sold White
Hat Capital Partners LP and Magnetar Capital LLC up to $125 million
in Comtech convertible preferred stock (the "Preferred Stock") (the
"PIPE") with an overly generous dividend and a conversion price
that gave White Hat and Magnetar an at-the-money option.
The incumbent Board has also manipulated future election contests
at the Company by (a) requiring White Hat and Magnetar to
contractually agree to vote their shares in the same manner as
recommended by the Board on all votes after the 2021 Annual Meeting
(the "Voting Agreements") and (b) further locking down White Hat
and Magnetar's continued support with expansive standstill
restrictions (the "Standstill"), added the suit.
COMTECH TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP. designs, develops, and
manufactures technology electronic products and systems. The
Company's communications products are used worldwide for voice,
data, facsimile, and video transmissions at microwave frequencies
in satellite, over-the-horizon microwave, terrestrial
line-of-sight, and wireless telecommunications. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan A. Cook, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 499-3601
-and-
Joel Fleming, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
-and-
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
David Tejtel, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER &
TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, NY 10507
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
CONAGRA BRANDS: 9th Cir. Partially Revives Frozen Chicken Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hailey Konnath, writing for Law360, reports that the Ninth Circuit
on Oct. 26 partially resurrected a proposed class action alleging
Conagra Brands Inc. . . . In his April 2020 suit, Robert Cohen
alleged Conagra violated California law by falsely advertising the
frozen chicken products as natural and preservative-free. [GN]
CULLEN PARTNERS: Underpays Food Runners, Refugio et al. Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO REFUGIO and JESUS RAMIREZ, and other similarly situated
current and former food runners, waiters and bussers, Plaintiffs v.
CULLEN PARTNERS LLC d/b/a BLEND ON THE WATER and ANTONIO PEREZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05843 (E.D.N.Y., October
20, 2021) brings this collective action complaint against the
Defendants to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.
The Plaintiffs, who were employed by the Defendants as food
runners, claim that the Defendant required them to regularly work
more than 40 hours per week. However, the Defendants denied them of
proper 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. Specifically, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff
Refugio the proper overtime rate from August 2018 through on or
about August 8, 2021. Instead, they were only paid straight time
for all hours they have worked. In addition, the Defendants failed
to keep accurate records of wages or hours worked by the Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees, and failed to provide them
with accurate wage statements, the Plaintiffs allege.
Cullen Partners LLC d/b/a Blend on the Water operates as a
restaurant company owned by Antonio Perez. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10007
Tel: (212) 323-6980
E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of December 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of D-Market Electronic Services
& Trading (NASDAQ: HEPS), Gaotu Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GOTU), and
Amarin Corporation PLC (NASDAQ: AMRN). Stockholders have until the
deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff.
Additional information about each case can be found at the link
provided.
D-Market Electronic Services & Trading (NASDAQ: HEPS)
Class Period: July 1, 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 20, 2021
The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus for the IPO (collectively, the "Registration Statement")
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose the following adverse facts that existed at the time of
the IPO: (1) D-Market had suffered a sharp deceleration in
operational and sales growth as consumers retreated from e-commerce
offerings in 2Q21; (2) D-Market's revenue growth had decreased to
just 5% year-over-year growth in 2Q21, over 90% below the most
recent growth rate highlighted in the Registration Statement; (3)
D-Market's GMV growth had decreased to just 38% year-over-year
growth in 2Q21, less than half the most recent growth rate
highlighted in the Registration Statement; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, at the time of the IPO, the Company's business and
financial prospects were not as strong as represented in the IPO
Registration Statement.
For more information on the D-Market class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HEPS
Gaotu Techedu Inc. (NYSE: GOTU)
Class Period: March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 20, 2021
According to the lawsuit, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan
Stanley sold a large amount of Gaotu American Depository Shares
(ADSs) during the Class Period while in possession of material
non-public information about Archegos Capital Management (at the
time a family office with $10 billion under management) and its
need to fully liquidate its position in Gaotu because of margin
call pressure. As a result of these sales, the defendants in the
case, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, avoided billions in losses
combined.
For more information on the Gaotu class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/GOTU
Amarin Corporation PLC (NASDAQ: AMRN)
Class Period: December 5, 2018 to June 21, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 20, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Amarin and
its senior executives made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) there was an
increasingly high risk that certain of Amarin's patents would be
invalidated; (2) once the District Court invalidated certain of
Amarin's patents, there was little to no chance of reversing that
ruling; (3) Amarin's litigation was preventing it from effectuating
a successful takeover; and (4) Amarin was downplaying the true
threat the ongoing ANDA litigation posed to the Company's business
and future prospects.
For more information on the Amarin class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/AMRN
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a
nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York,
California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and
other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the
country. For more information about the firm, please visit
www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]
D-MARKET ELECTRONIC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Oct. 27 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
D-MARKET Elektronik Hizmetler ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi d/b/a
Hepsiburada ("Hepsiburada" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: HEPS) for
violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on
July 1, 2021 (the "IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm before
December 20, 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. Hepsiburada's operational and sales
growth suffered a sharp deceleration in the second quarter of 2021.
Based on slow growth, the Company attempted to fortify certain high
frequency product categories while discounting others. These
changes negatively impacted both revenue and GMV. Based on these
facts, the Company's public statements throughout the IPO period
were false and materially misleading. When the market learned the
truth about Hepsiburada, 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
www.schallfirm.com [GN]
DEMI CO: Slade Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Demi Co. LLC. The
case is styled as Linda Slade, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Demi Co.
LLC doing business as: 12th Tribe, Case No. 1:21-cv-09170
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 5, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Demi Co. LLC doing business as: 12th Tribe --
https://www.12thtribe.com/ -- is a women's boutique featuring
globally inspired jewelry and clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Phone: (917) 373-9128
Email: shakedlawgroup@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL COMMISSION: 3rd Cir. Reverses Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Albert Henry, writing for The AMA, reports that on a win for
the nation's patients and physicians, a federal appellate court
opinion recently halted a lawsuit from being certified as a class
action -- a classification that would have threatened to impede or
chill the medical community's efforts to use international medical
graduates (IMGs) to ease a physician shortage.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district-court
decision that would have allowed a lawsuit that several patients
filed against the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical
Graduates (ECFMG) to move forward as a class action.
The patients allege negligent infliction of emotional distress
after being treated by an ECFMG-certified IMG who falsified a
Social Security card and later lost his medical license and his
ECFMG certification. The appellate court said the lower court erred
in its decision certifying a class action and sent the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.
The Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State
Medical Societies had joined the Pennsylvania Medical Association
(PAMED) and the Association of American Medical Colleges in filing
a friend-of-the-court brief that supported the ECFMG and asked the
3rd Circuit to overturn the lower court decision in the case,
Russell et al. v. Educational Commission for Foreign Medical
Graduates.
"Class certification in this case would . . . result in undesirable
consequences both for class members and for the medical community,"
the brief told the court. "Class members who previously were
unaware of their doctor's misuse of a social security number would,
under plaintiff's theory of the case, suffer emotional distress
upon learning about it through class notice. This result alone
should preclude class certification."
In addition, the brief said "allowing class certification would
bring potential class liability to any entity that has a role in
allowing IMGs -- of which there are currently almost 223,000 in
this country -- to practice medicine, chilling the medical
community's efforts to provide access to care across America and,
in particular, in patient communities of need."
The brief explained that the nation is facing a serious physician
shortage of physicians and with 23% of all licensed physicians in
the U.S. being IMGs, they are "a large and critical portion of the
physician population in this country, the need for which is
exacerbated by an aging population and presently a pandemic."
Almost 21 million Americans live in parts of the country where
foreign-trained physicians account for at least half of all
physicians. Find out more about the cases in which the AMA
Litigation Center is providing assistance and learn about the
Litigation Center's case-selection criteria.
Lower court errored
The case stems from Oluwafemi Charles Igberase's quest to become a
physician in the U.S. He passed medical licensing and
English-language examinations and received ECFMG certification, but
a residency program didn't accept him.
Two years later, he rearranged his name, changed his birthdate and
said he had never before applied. He again received certification,
but the ECFMG invalidated it and revoked his first certification
after learning of the falsification. In 1996, the man again applied
for ECFMG certification and created a new name, John Nosa Akoda. He
ultimately received a Maryland medical license, but in 2016 signed
a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to misuse of a Social Security
number to fraudulently obtain a medical license and admitted Akoda
was a pseudonym. The ECFMG invalidated his foreign doctor
certification and the Maryland Board of Physicians revoked his
medical license.
Among the several patients who sued the ECFMG for certifying the
man are a patient who received an unplanned emergency cesarean
section and others whose children he delivered. While the U.S.
District Court for the Easter District of Pennsylvania said the
women's lawsuit could proceed as a class action, the appellate
court said the lower court erred.
Among other things, "the court does not explicitly discuss whether
the effect certification of the issue class will have on the
effectiveness and fairness of resolution of remaining issues," the
appellate court said in its ruling. "If an issue-class jury finds
that the [ECFMG] owed plaintiffs a legal duty that it subsequently
breached, the commission may face undue pressure to settle, even if
their breach did not cause plaintiff's harm." [GN]
EQT CORPORATION: Ross Natural Gas Royalty Suit Removed to W.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled RICHARD A. ROSS and FIELDSTONE VENTURES, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EQT
CORPORATION, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, RICE DRILLING B, LLC, VANTAGE
ENERGY APPALACHIA LLC, and VANTAGE ENERGY APPALACHIA II LLC, Case
No. GD 21-11948, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on November 5, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01585-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged breach of
quasi-contract/contract implied at law, unjust enrichment,
conversion, and violation of the Pennsylvania's Guaranteed Minimum
Royalty Act by drilling for, extracting, and producing natural gas
in properties without paying royalty to the Plaintiffs as cotenants
of the properties.
EQT Corporation is an American energy company, headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
EQT Production Company is a natural gas producer, headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Rice Drilling B, LLC is an oil drilling company based in
Pennsylvania.
Vantage Energy Appalachia LLC is a natural gas producer,
headquartered in Pennsylvania.
Vantage Energy Appalachia II LLC is a natural gas producer,
headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
James L. Rockney, Esq.
Justin H. Werner, Esq.
Lucas Liben, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-3131
Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
EVENTBRITE INC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Snow Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion to
compel arbitration in Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No.
20-cv-03698, has been granted and the suit has now been stayed.
On June 4, 2020, three plaintiffs, seeking to represent a proposed
class of individuals who purchased tickets on or after June 3,
2016, filed suit against the Company in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, in a case captioned
Snow, et al. v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03698 (the Class
Action).
Plaintiffs allege that Eventbrite failed to provide an opportunity
for purchasers of tickets to events sold through Eventbrite's
platform to obtain a refund where the event is postponed,
rescheduled, or canceled.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in addition to restitution and
monetary damages under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, in addition to
claims brought under California common law.
The Company denies the allegations and intends to defend the case
vigorously.
The case is in its early stages.
Prior to answering Plaintiffs' complaint, Eventbrite brought a
motion to compel arbitration pursuant to its Terms of Service. The
Court denied that motion. The Company thereafter answered
Plaintiffs' Complaint and brought a second motion to compel
arbitration, based in part on facts established via the Company's
Answer.
The Court granted that motion on September 2, 2021, and stayed the
suit pending the results of arbitration.
Two of the named Plaintiffs have since initiated individual
arbitrations pursuant to the Company's Terms of Service.
The Company has not yet filed any response or other paper in either
proceeding.
The Company is unable to predict the likely outcome at this point.
Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a
global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows
anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enables events
ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music
festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world.
The company is based in San Francisco, California.
FACEBOOK INC: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 27
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) between
November 3, 2016 and October 4, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Facebook
investors under the federal securities laws.
To join the Facebook class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2176.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Facebook misrepresented its user growth; (2) Facebook knew, or
should have known, that duplicate accounts represented a greater
portion of its growth than stated, and it should have provided more
detailed disclosures as to the implication of duplicate accounts to
Facebook's user base and growth; (3) Facebook did not provide a
fair platform for speech, and regularly protected high profile
users via its Cross Check/XCheck system; (4) despite being aware of
their use of Facebook's platforms, the Company failed to respond
meaningfully to drug cartels, human traffickers, and violent
organizations; (5) Facebook has been working to attract preteens to
its platform and services; and (6) 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2176.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
CONTACT:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
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]
FACEBOOK INC: Wants Docs in Antitrust Class Action Returned
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
Facebook Inc want a California federal judge to force the return of
dozens of documents they said were "inadvertently" shared with the
plaintiffs' lawyers leading a consumer antitrust class action, an
attorney for the company said in court on Oct. 26.
The documents at issue in the private lawsuit are among more than
12 million pages the social media giant disclosed to the Federal
Trade Commission, said Sonal Mehta, a lawyer for Facebook at Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The FTC last year sued Facebook in
Washington, D.C., federal court for alleged anticompetitive
behavior.
Facebook argues that some of the material it gave to the FTC is
protected or otherwise privileged and should not be in the hands of
private plaintiffs' lawyers who sued the company last year for
allegedly monopolizing the social network market. The discovery
dispute tests the power of a party in a complex case to "claw back"
errantly disclosed documents.
A U.S. magistrate judge, sounding exasperated, said she wanted to
hear more from the parties before deciding whether to claw back the
documents.
"This has already gone off the rails -- this whole process,"
Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi said. She set a Nov. 2 deadline
for the lawyers to propose a schedule to file court papers
addressing whether the disputed records should be returned to
Facebook.
Mehta did not immediately return a message seeking comment on on
Oct. 27. Plaintiffs' lawyer Brian Dunne of Bathaee Dunne declined
to comment.
Dunne said at the Oct. 26 hearing that Facebook can't claim the
documents are privileged since the company shared them with the
FTC. Mehta said in a court filing that the production of records to
the FTC did not waive privilege.
DeMarchi urged the lawyers to try to work out their disputes.
"This will be a very difficult case no matter what. But it'll be
even more difficult if you can't deal with this professional
courtesy issue," the judge said.
The case is Klein v. Facebook Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, No. 5:20-cv-08570.
For consumer class: Stephen Swedlow of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan; and Shana Scarlett of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
For advertiser class: Brian Dunne and Yavar Bathaee of Bathaee
Dunne; and Kristen Anderson of Scott + Scott
For Facebook: Sonal Mehta, David Gringer and Ari Holtzblatt of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr [GN]
FARMLAND PARTNERS: Brokop Putative Class Suit Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------
Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a purported class action suit headed by Don
Brokop.
On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned
Kachmar v. Farmland Partners Inc., was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and
certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosure
related to the FPI Loan Program was materially false and misleading
in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned
Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado.
As discussed below, the current named plaintiff in that action is a
purported FPI shareholder named Don Brokop.
The complaint filed in the Brokop Action alleged substantially
identical claims to those alleged in the Kachmar Action.
Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar
Action and the Brokop Action and for appointment as lead plaintiff.
On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar Action
voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the
court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the
Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner (the "Turners"),
as lead plaintiffs in the Brokop Action.
On March 11, 2019, the Turners and additional plaintiff Obelisk
Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Brokop Action.
On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the Brokop Action. The defendants
answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019.
On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk
Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk
Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which
automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's
determination of the motion.
On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, seeking to certify the case as a class action on
behalf of purchasers of Farmland Partners' common stock between
November 12, 2015 and July 10, 2018 and to have the Turners and
purported stockholder Don Brokop appointed as class
representatives.
On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff
in place of Obelisk Capital Management.
On December 8, 2020, the court granted the Turners' motion to amend
to add Brokop as an additional plaintiff and denied the Company's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
As a result, the automatic discovery stay was lifted and the court
entered a schedule for proceedings going forward.
The Company, Mr. Paul A.Pittman, and Mr. Luca Fabbri filed an
opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
February 8, 2021.
On February 17, 2021, plaintiffs filed a motion to withdraw the
Turners as lead plaintiffs and to substitute Brokop as lead
plaintiff. On June 7, 2021, the court granted the motion to
withdraw the Turners and substitute Brokop as lead plaintiff. The
parties completed fact discovery on June 29, 2021.
On July 23, 2021, Magistrate Judge Nina Wang issued a Report and
Recommendation to the district court recommending that Brokop's
motion for class certification be granted in part and denied in
part.
Specifically, the magistrate judge recommended that the district
court deny the motion as to purchasers of Farmland Partners common
stock between November 12, 2015 and December 14, 2016 and grant the
motion as to purchasers between December 14, 2016 and July 11,
2018.
On September 30, 2021, the district court issued an order adopting
in part the magistrate judge's recommendation and certifying a
plaintiff class of purchasers of FPI stock between February 23,
2017 and July 11, 2018.
Discovery concluded in the Brokop Action on October 1, 2021.
Farmland said, "The Company can provide no assurances as to the
outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related
expenses at this time."
Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company
that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland
and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company
is based in Denver, Colorado.
FLORIDA: Class Action v. Juvenile Justice Dep't Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Saunders, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a federal
judge has cleared the way for a class-action lawsuit against the
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice about the use of solitary
confinement for minors, including children with disabilities.
The lawsuit was filed in 2019 on behalf of individual juveniles,
but U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle approved a request to certify
it as a class action on behalf of thousands of minors.
Hinkle said department data showed that between 2,720 and 3,853
juveniles were placed in solitary confinement at detention
facilities each year from 2014 to 2020. Plaintiffs' attorneys
contend that the use of solitary confinement violates the U.S.
Constitution and discriminates against children with disabilities
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a federal
law known as the Rehabilitation Act.
"To be sure, the plaintiffs have not proven that all -- or even any
-- of these individuals were unconstitutionally placed in solitary
confinement," Hinkle wrote in the 15-page decision issued Oct. 22.
"But parties seeking class certification need not establish at the
outset that they will ultimately prevail on the merits. It is
enough that the plaintiffs have a substantial claim that the
department's custom, if not its ostensible policy, is to place
children in isolation unnecessarily and to subject them to
unconstitutional conditions. If the plaintiffs' view of
constitutional law ultimately wins out -- it might or might not --
the department's method for deciding whether to place a child in
solitary confinement will change for all these thousands of
children, as will the conditions of their confinement."
Plaintiffs' attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, Florida
Legal Services and the Florida Justice Institute issued statements
on Oct. 27 raising the decision.
"We have compelling evidence that state officials have known for
years about the damaging effects of solitary confinement but have
refused to address them," Leonard J. Laurenceau, staff attorney for
the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in a statement. "We will also
prove that the way Florida uses solitary confinement constitutes
discrimination against children with disabilities in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act."
The Department of Juvenile Justice fought the request for class
certification, saying in a May brief that "behavioral confinement"
is constitutional and does not violate the disabilities laws.
Attorneys for the department also pointed to varying factors that
might cause juveniles to be put into such confinement.
"The decision to confine each youth is made on an individualized,
case-by-case basis," the brief said. "The constellation of
variables that go into a decision to place a youth in confinement
and what a certain youth experiences while in confinement make it
impossible to have a class. Each confinement would have to be
individually examined, which does not lend itself to sweeping
generalities by looking at numbers alone."
But Hinkle wrote that the plaintiffs are challenging "practices
that are consistently applied to children in department facilities
across the state."
"It is undoubtedly true, as the department asserts, that children
are placed in solitary confinement for different reasons and, if
properly placed there at all, can properly be kept there for
different periods," Hinkle wrote. "But the plaintiffs challenge the
department's standard for placing children in solitary, not just
the standard's application to each individual. The plaintiffs say
the standard itself is flawed. This is a contention that raises
common issues and can be answered one way or the other for the
class as a whole."
The named plaintiffs in the case are identified in Hinkle's
decision as G.H., a 15-year-old boy diagnosed with attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, mood disorder, and post-traumatic
stress disorder, and R.L., a 15-year-old girl diagnosed with
conditions such as bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder
and major depressive disorder. Hinkle wrote that both have been
repeatedly placed in solitary confinement in juvenile-detention
facilities.
Along with the allegations about violating the disabilities laws,
the plaintiffs' attorneys contend that the department's practices
violate constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual
punishment. Hinkle has scheduled a trial in September 2022. [GN]
GAOTU TECHEDU: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of December 20 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 27 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan
Stanley ("Morgan Stanley"), on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares (ADS) of
the company known as Gaotu Techedu Inc., ("Gaotu" or the "Company")
(NYSE: GOTU), which was formerly known as GSX Techedu Inc., between
March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc., and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc., you
may, no later than December 20, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc.
Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial services
institutions that served as prime brokers for Archegos Capital
Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under
management, helping Archegos make trades and lending it capital in
the form of margin lending.
According to the filed Complaint, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley
sold a large amount of Gaotu shares during the Class Period while
in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos
and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because
of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses
combined.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
GEO GROUP: Harris Files Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Geo Group,
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Coty Scott Harris, and
all other prisoners similarly situated v. Geo Group, Incorporated,
New Castle Correctional Facility, Case No. 1:21-cv-02815-JPH-TAB
(S.D. Ind., Nov. 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Prisoner Civil Rights.
The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) -- https://www.geogroup.com/ --
headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, is a publicly traded real
estate investment trust that invests in private prisons and mental
health facilities in North America, Australia, South Africa, and
the United Kingdom.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
GET YOKD: Mason Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Get Yokd Nutrition,
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Portia Mason, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Get Yokd Nutrition,
Inc. a California corporation, Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:21-cv-08484-SB-AFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 26, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Get Yok'd Nutrition -- https://www.getyokd.com/ -- is the premier
supplement store to shop in Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
GOLDMAN SACHS: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of Dec. 20 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on Oct. 27 disclosed that
a federal securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ("Goldman Sachs") and Morgan
Stanley ("Morgan Stanley"), on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares (ADS) of
the company known as Gaotu Techedu Inc., ("Gaotu" or the "Company")
(NYSE: GOTU), which was formerly known as GSX Techedu Inc., between
March 22, 2021 and March 29, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").
All investors who purchased the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc., and
incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.
If you have incurred losses in the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc., you
may, no later than December 20, 2021, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact
Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in
the ADS's of Gaotu Techedu Inc.
Both Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are global financial services
institutions that served as prime brokers for Archegos Capital
Management ("Archegos"), a family office with $10 billion under
management, helping Archegos make trades and lending it capital in
the form of margin lending.
According to the filed Complaint, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley
sold a large amount of Gaotu shares during the Class Period while
in possession of material, non-public information about Archegos
and its need to fully liquidate its position in the Company because
of margin call pressure. As a result of these sales, Defendants
Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley avoided billions in losses
combined.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com.
Contact:
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com, donovan@whafh.com or
classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION: $129MM Settlement to be Heard on Feb. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THE POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
ST. LOUIS, Individually and On Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated,
Case No. 3:19-cv-04744-WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION
INCORPORATED, JAMES H. ROBERTS,
JIGISHA DESAI, and LAUREL J.
KRZEMINSKI
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
Dept.: Courtroom 12, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED GRANITE CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED
("GRANITE") COMMON STOCK FROM FEBRUARY 17, 2017 THROUGH OCTOBER 24,
2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT PENDING IN FEDERAL COURT (THE
"LITIGATION"). PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on February 24,
2022, at 8:00 a.m., before the Honorable William Alsup, United
States District Judge, at the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court"), 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102 for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement in the Stipulation
of Settlement, dated April 30, 2021, of the Litigation for
$129,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class Members; (2) whether
the proposed Plan of Allocation of the Settlement Amount is fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the applications by Class
Counsel for attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and
(4) whether the proposed Judgment should be entered.
The Litigation has been certified as a class action on behalf of
all investors (individuals and entities) who purchased or acquired
Granite common stock from February 17, 2017 through October 24,
2019, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby ("Class Members").
The Litigation asserts claims against Granite and certain
individual defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A
detailed description of the Litigation, including the parties, the
claims and defenses, and other important information about your
rights and options are in the detailed Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice").
At the Settlement Hearing, Class Counsel will request that the
Court award attorneys' fees according to the terms of the retainer
agreement between Class Counsel and the Class Representative, the
Police Retirement System of St. Louis. These attorneys' fees are
estimated to be no more than 18% of the Settlement Amount, or
approximately $23,220,000. Class members are not personally liable
for any such fees or any other expenses (estimated to be $950,000
for litigation expenses, and $550,000 for Notice and Administration
Expenses). The net recovery for Class Members (also referred to as
the "Net Settlement Fund") is estimated to be no less than
$104,280,000 ($129,000,000 minus all of the foregoing estimated
fees and expenses).
Class Counsel states that it has litigated this case on behalf of
the Class Representative and the Class for over eighteen months
against four Defendants represented by four different law firms. On
behalf of the Class, Class Counsel conducted an extensive
investigation and drafted a substantially enhanced amended
complaint that included new theories of liability; defeated
Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint; obtained class
certification; resolved numerous discovery disputes; and litigated
one such discovery dispute before the Court. Class Counsel also
propounded dozens of document requests and subpoenas and obtained
and analyzed nearly 2 million pages of documents from the
Defendants as well as third parties, including Granite's auditors
and certain construction joint ventures. Additionally, Class
Counsel deposed three current or former Granite employees,
including one 30(b)(6) deposition on seven noticed topics, and, at
the time this settlement was reached, had scheduled, assigned teams
to prepare, and was preparing to take 12 additional fact witness
depositions and a further 30(b)(6) deposition. Class Counsel also
served written interrogatories on Defendant Granite. Based on
extensive investigation, Class Counsel moved for partial summary
judgment for particular elements of certain claims based on
information obtained during the course of discovery. Pursuant to
the Class Representative's retainer agreement with Class Counsel,
which the Court reviewed prior to appointing Class Counsel, Class
Counsel will not receive any compensation for any of its time, and
no reimbursement for any of its expenses, absent a recovery for the
Class Representative and the Class.
To obtain the Notice or a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim and Release"), visit the settlement website
at www.GraniteSecuritiesLitigation.com or write to Granite
Securities Litigation, c/o Epiq Class Action and Claims Solutions,
Inc., P.O. Box 5197, Portland, OR 97208-5197.
To get a payment from the Net Settlement Fund you must submit a
Proof of Claim and Release by mail postmarked no later than January
24, 2022, or electronically no later than January 24, 2022,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Failure to submit
your Proof of Claim and Release by January 24, 2022, will subject
your claim to possible rejection and may preclude you from
receiving any payment from the settlement. If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself by the deadline, you will be
bound by the settlement and any judgment entered in the Litigation,
whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.
To be excluded from the settlement, you must submit a written
request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice that is postmarked or received no later than December 3,
2021. All Class Members who do not timely exclude themselves will
be bound by the settlement (assuming it is approved by the Court)
even if they do not submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release.
To object to any aspect of the settlement, including the Plan of
Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses,
you must submit a written objection in accordance with all the
instructions set forth in the Notice that is received or filed, not
simply postmarked, on or before January 5, 2022. If you object,
but also want to be eligible for a payment from the settlement, you
must still submit a timely Proof of Claim and Release.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.
If you have any questions about the settlement you may contact
Class Counsel at the following address:
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
Peter E. Borkon
555 12th Street, Suite 1600
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: 888-879-9418
DATED: October 25, 2021
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN]
GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Removes Levine Suit to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of STEPHEN LEVINE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRUBHUB
HOLDINGS INC.; and GRUBHUB INC, Defendants, filed a notice to
remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
Massachusetts, County of Suffolk (Case No. 2184CV01840) to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 25,
2020.
The clerk of court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:21-cv-11742. The case is assigned to Judge William G. Young.
GRUBHUB INC. is an American online and mobile prepared food
ordering and delivery platform owned by Just Eat Takeaway that
connects diners with local restaurants. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5306
Telephone: (202) 955-8500
Email: JLipshutz@gibsondunn.com
HOEGH LNG: Rosen Law Firm Reminds of December 27 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 28
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Hoegh LNG Partners LP (NYSE: HMLP)
between August 22, 2019 and July 27, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Hoegh investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Hoegh class action, go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2140.htmlor call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.
According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
(1) Hoegh LNG Partners LP (the "Partnership") was facing issues
with the PGN FSRU Lampung charter; (2) as a result, the PGN FSRU
Lampung charterer would state that it would commence arbitration to
declare the charter null and void, and/or to terminate the charter,
and/or seek damages; (3) the Partnership would need to find
alternative refinancing for its PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility;
(4) the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility matured in September 2021,
not October 2021 as previously stated; (5) the Partnership would be
forced to accept less favorable refinancing terms with regards to
the PGN FSRU Lampung credit facility; (6) Hoegh LNG would not
extend the revolving credit line to the Partnership past its
maturation date; (7) Hoegh LNG would reveal that it "will have very
limited capacity to extend any additional advances to the
Partnership beyond what is currently drawn under the facility"; (8)
as a result of the foregoing, the Partnership would essentially end
distributions to common units holders; (9) the COVID-19 pandemic
was not the sole or root cause of the Partnership's issues in
Indonesia, in 2019, before the pandemic, there were already a very
low amount of demand in Indonesia for the Partnership's gas; (10)
the auditing, tax, nor maintenance of PGN FSRU Lampung were not the
sole or root cause(s) of the Partnership's issues in Indonesia; and
(11) 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.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December
27, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-2140.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
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]
HOLLI SULLIVAN: Faces Suit Over Limits on Contributions to PACs
---------------------------------------------------------------
INDIANA RIGHT TO LIFE VICTORY FUND and SARKES TARZIAN, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. HOLLI SULLIVAN, in her official capacity as Secretary
of State, Indiana Election Commission, PAUL OKESON, in his official
capacity as Chair and member of the Indiana Election Commission,
SUZANNAH WILSON OVERHOLT, in her official capacity as Vice-chair
and member of the Indiana Election Commission, KAREN
CELESTINO-HORSEMAN, in her official capacity as member of the
Indiana Election Commission, J. BRADLEY KING, in his official
capacity as co-director of the Indiana Election Division, ANGELA M.
NUSSMEYER, in her official capacity as co-director of the Indiana
Election Division, THEODORE E. ROKITA, in his official capacity as
Indiana Attorney General, RYAN MEARS and ERIKA OLIPHANT, in their
official capacities as prosecuting attorneys, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-02796-SEB-TAB (S.D., Ind., November 4, 2021) is a class
action against the Defendants for violation of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983.
The Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the constitutionality
of Indiana Election Code's prohibition on corporate contributions
to political action committees (PACs) for purposes of independent
expenditures. It asserts that Indiana has no constitutionally
cognizable interest in limiting contributions to independent
expenditure committees, or to other PACs when those contributions
are earmarked for independent expenditures.
Indiana Right to Life Victory Fund is a political action committee
headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana.
Sarkes Tarzian, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation, with its
principal office in Bloomington, Indiana. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James Bopp, Jr., Esq.
Courtney Turner Milbank, Esq.
Joseph D. Maughon, Esq.
THE BOPP LAW FIRM
1 South 6th Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-2434
Facsimile: (812) 235-3685
E-mail: jboppjr@aol.com
cmilbank@bopplaw.com
jmaughon@bopplaw.com
HONEST COMPANY: Bragar Eagel Reminds of November 15 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been
commenced on behalf of stockholders of The Honest Company (NASDAQ:
HNST), Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: VIPS), InnovAge Holding Corp.
(NASDAQ: INNV), and Lightning eMotors, Inc. (NYSE: ZEV).
Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court
to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case
can be found at the link provided.
The Honest Company, Inc. (NASDAQ: HNST)
Class Period: May 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: November 15, 2021
On May 6, 2021, Honest Company completed its IPO, selling
approximately 26 million shares of common stock for $16.00 per
share.
Approximately two months after the IPO, on August 13, 2021, before
the market opened, Honest Company announced its second quarter 2021
financial results, reporting a net loss of $20 million, compared to
a net loss of only $0.4 million for the second quarter of 2020.
Honest disclosed that its revenue grew only 3% as compared to the
second quarter of 2020, because it was negatively impacted by "an
estimated $3.7 million COVID-19 stock-up impact primarily in
Diapers and Wipes in the prior year period." Honest Company also
disclosed that its Diapers and Wipes category revenue declined 2%
compared to the second quarter of 2020. Honest further disclosed
that "Household and Wellness revenue declined 6% from the second
quarter of 2020 as consumer and customer demand for sanitization
products decreased as consumers became vaccinated and customers
managed heavy levels of inventory."
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.98 per share, or
28%, to close at $10.07 per share on August 13, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
On August 19, 2021, the Company's stock price closed at an all-time
low of $9.16 per share, a nearly 43% decline from the $16.00 per
share IPO price.
According to the complaint, the Registration Statement was
materially false and misleading and omitted: (1) that, prior to the
IPO, the Company's results had been significantly impacted by a
multimillion-dollar COVID-19 stock-up for products in the Diapers
and Wipes category and Household and Wellness category; (2) that,
at the time of the IPO, the Company was experiencing decelerating
demand for such products; (3) that, as a result, the Company's
financial results would likely be adversely impacted; and (4) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects, were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
For more information on the Honest Company class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/HNST
Vipshop Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: VIPS)
Class Period: March 22, 2021 to March 29, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 13, 2021
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
traded while in possession of material non-public information and
that: (1) Defendants obtained the material non-public information
pursuant to their agreements with Archegos Capital Management's
("Archegos") and as a result of their serving as prime brokers of
Archegos. (2) Defendants knew, recklessly disregarded, or should
have known that they owed a fiduciary duty, or obligation arising
from a similar relationship of trust and confidence, to Archegos to
keep the information confidential. (3) Nevertheless, while in
possession of material, non-public adverse information, Defendants
collectively sold billions of dollars' worth of Company shares.
Later, when the information became publicly known, the price of the
Company's common stock declined sharply as a result of such
disclosure.
For more information on the Vipshop class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/VIPS
InnovAge Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: INNV)
Class Period: March 2021 IPO
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 13, 2021
The action alleges that InnovAge and other insiders made false and
misleading statements in the registration statement for the
company's March 2021 IPO, which allowed InnovAge to raise over
$373.6 million in proceeds.
Specifically, the registration statement omitted, among other
facts, that: (1) certain of InnovAge's facilities failed to provide
covered services, provide accessible and adequate services, manage
participants' medical situations, and oversee use of specialists;
(2) as a result, the company was reasonably likely to be subject to
regulatory scrutiny, including by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS); and (3) consequently, there was a
significant risk that CMS would suspend new enrollments pending an
audit of the company's services.
The registration statement's accuracy was brought into question on
Sep. 21, 2021, when the company revealed that CMS determined to
freeze new enrollments at its Sacramento facility based on observed
deficiencies.
On this news, the company's stock price fell $2.90 per share, or
25%, in a single trading day. As of the filing of the complaint,
InnovAge trades nearly 70% below the $20 IPO price.
For more information on the InnovAge class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/INNV
Lightning eMotors, Inc. (NYSE: ZEV)
Class Period: May 7, 2021 to August 16, 2021
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: December 14, 2021
Lightning eMotors' stock began trading on the New York Stock
Exchange on May 7, 2021 following a de-SPAC transaction with
GigCapital3. Then, on August 16, 2021, Lightning eMotors announced
the Company's financial results for the second quarter of 2021,
including a net loss per share of $0.79 compared to a loss of $0.10
in the second quarter of 2020. The Company also pulled its full
year financial guidance for the remainder of 2021, just days after
announcing a multi-year agreement with Forest River, a Berkshire
Hathaway company.
On this news, Lightning eMotors' stock price fell $1.63 per share,
or 16.93%, to close at $8.00 per share on August 17, 2021.
For more information on the Lightning eMotors class action go to:
https://bespc.com/cases/ZEV
About Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a
nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York,
California, and South Carolina. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and
other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the
country. For more information about the firm, please visit
www.bespc.com. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
Contact Information: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Brandon Walker,
Esq. Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq. (212) 355-4648
investigations@bespc.comwww.bespc.com [GN]
HOSPICE OF ST. FRANCIS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mallon Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINA N. MALLON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPICE OF ST. FRANCIS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-01782 (M.D. Fla., Oct. 25, 2021) seeks
to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Mallon was employed by the Defendant as bookkeeper.
HOSPICE OF ST. FRANCIS, INC. operates as non-profit organization,
providing spiritual care, medication and equipment services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
INDEPENDENT BANK: Summary Judgment Bid in BOH Merger Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the
company's motion for summary judgment filed in the BOH Holdings,
Inc.'s merger-related suit, is pending.
Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited in
connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and
its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on
April 15, 2014.
Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford
Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had
deposit accounts at BOH.
Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from
SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including
BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif
Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No.
3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among other things, that the
plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford
Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged fraudulent
transfers by the defendant banks.
On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission
to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which
motion was subsequently granted.
The Second Amended Class Action Complaint presents previously
unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation
in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that
the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of
certain BOH officers.
The plaintiffs seek recovery from the Bank and other defendants for
their losses.
The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued
March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for
class certification and designation of class representatives and
counsel.
On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the
plaintiff's motion.
In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery
stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order
providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020.
Due to agreed upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the
Court amended the scheduling order to provide that the case be
ready for trial on January 11, 2021.
In light of additional agreed upon extensions of discovery
deadlines, the Court entered a new scheduling order on March 9,
2020, which now provides that the case be ready for trial March 15,
2021. In light of delays in discovery associated with the COVID-19
pandemic, the parties agreed to amend the scheduling order with new
ready for trial date of May 6, 2021.
On September 10, 2020, Defendants filed a motion for suggestion of
remand in order to remand the case to the Southern District of
Texas.
On March 11, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to amend the
scheduling order, which was granted, effectively vacating the May
6, 2021 trial date, with a new trial date to be determined upon
remand. On April 5, 2021, Defendants re-urged the motion for
suggestion of remand, the outcome of which is still pending. In
February 2021, the Bank filed its motion for summary judgment and
also joined in on an omnibus motion for summary judgment on
procedural issues common to all Defendants.
In their reply brief, plaintiffs appear to have abandoned five of
the seven causes of action against BOH.
Parties are awaiting a ruling on the summary judgment briefing to
determine the final causes of action to be addressed at trial.
The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated
with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in
legal fees as the case proceeds to trial.
The Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the
Second Amended Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially
indicated that the claims are not covered by the policies or that a
"loss" has not yet occurred. The Bank pursued insurance coverage as
well as reimbursement of defense costs through the initiation of
litigation and other means.
On November 6, 2018, the Company settled claims under its Financial
Institutions Select Policy pursuant to which the Company received
payment of an amount which is not material to the operations of the
Company. The Company did not settle any claims under its Financial
Institution Bond Policy.
The Company believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are
without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit.
Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a
number of procedural matters and issues. As such, the Company is
unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the
uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential
costs or damages arising from, this case."
Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial
bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services.
Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit
and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services.
Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The
company is based in McKinney, Texas.
JOHN KELLY FOODS: Morales Files ADA Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against John Kelly Foods, et
al. The case is styled as Nataly Morales, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. John Kelly Foods doing
business as: John Kelly Chocolates, a California corporation, Does
1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:21-cv-08432-JAK-MAA (C.D. Cal., Oct.
25, 2021).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
John Kelly Chocolates -- https://www.johnkellychocolates.com/ --
specializes in exceptionally delicious chocolates by using
all-natural, premium quality ingredients, and make everything in
small batches.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq.
Binyamin I. Manoucheri, Esq.
Jasmine Behroozan, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
binyamin@wilshirelawfirm.com
jasmine@wilshirelawfirm.com
JOHNSON HALLER: Jones Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Johnson Haller Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as DeShawn Jones, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson Haller Inc.,
Does 1-20, Case No. 34-2021-00310230-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sacramento Cty., Oct. 25, 2021).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Johnson Haller, Inc. is located in Granite Bay, California and is
part of the Other Support Services Industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM
9811 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Phone: 949-379-6250
JUUL LABS: Baldwin County Sues Over Youth E-Cigarette Crisis
------------------------------------------------------------
BALDWIN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, BALDWIN COUNTY, STATE OF
ALABAMA, 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-08601 (N.D. Cal., November 4, 2021) is a class action
against the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and
violations of Alabama 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.
Baldwin County Board of Education, Baldwin County, State of Alabama
is a school district with its offices located at 2600-A North Hand
Avenue, Bay Minette, Alabama.
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:
Andy D. Birchfield, Jr., Esq.
Joseph G. VanZandt, Esq.
Davis S. Vaughn, Esq.
BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, LLC
234 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36103
Telephone: (334) 269-2343
E-mail: Andy.Birchfield@BeasleyAllen.com
Joseph.VanZandt@BeasleyAllen.com
Davis.Vaughn@BeasleyAllen.com
KBR INC: Enforcement of $19MM Award to Former Employees Suspended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2021, that the award of $19 million from
the appellate court of Moundou to former employees of the company's
former Chadian subsidiary, Subsahara Services, Inc. ("SSI"), is
still suspended.
In May 2018, former employees of the company's former Chadian
subsidiary, SSI, filed a class action suit claiming unpaid damages
arising from the ESSO Chad Development Project for Exxon Mobil
Corporation dating back to the early 2000s. Exxon is also named as
a defendant in the case.
The SSI employees previously filed two class action cases in or
around 2005 and 2006 for alleged unpaid overtime and bonuses. The
Chadian Labour Court ruled in favor of the SSI employees for unpaid
overtime resulting in a settlement of approximately $25 million
which was reimbursed by Exxon under its contract with SSI.
The second case for alleged unpaid bonuses was ultimately dismissed
by the Supreme Court of Chad.
The current case claims $122 million in unpaid bonuses
characterized as damages rather than employee bonuses to avoid the
previous Chadian Supreme Court dismissal and a 5-year statute of
limitations on wage-related claims. SSI's initial defense was filed
and a hearing was held in December 2018.
A merits hearing was held in February 2019. In March 2019, the
Labour Court issued a decision awarding the plaintiffs
approximately $34 million including a $2 million provisional award.
Exxon and SSI have appealed the award and requested suspension of
the provisional award which was approved on April 2, 2019.
Exxon and SSI filed a submission to the Court of Appeal on June 21,
2019, and filed briefs at a hearing on February 28, 2020.
The plaintiffs failed to file a response on March 13, 2020, and a
hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2020. The hearing was postponed
due to COVID-19 but took place on September 18, 2020.
On October 9, 2020, the appellate court of Moundou awarded the
plaintiffs approximately $19 million. SSI filed an appeal of this
decision to the Chadian Supreme Court on December 28, 2020.
SSI's request for suspension on the enforceability of the award
from the Chadian Supreme Court was granted on January 4, 2021, and
therefore there is no current risk of enforcement of the judgment.
KBR said, "At this time, we do not believe a risk of material loss
is probable related to this matter. SSI is no longer an existing
entity in Chad or the United States. Further, we believe any
amounts ultimately paid to the former employees related to this
adverse ruling would be reimbursable by Exxon based on the
applicable contract."
No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.
KBR, Inc. is a global engineering, construction, and services
company supporting the energy, petrochemicals, government services,
and civil infrastructure sectors. The Company offers a wide range
of services through two business segments, Energy and Chemicals
(E&C) and Government and Infrastructure (G&I). The company is based
in Houston, Texas.
KEURIG DR PEPPER: Continues to Defend Direct Purchaser Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend the remaining putative direct purchaser class
suit in the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.
In February 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc. and certain affiliated
entities filed suit against the company (KDP's) wholly-owned
subsidiary, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al).
The TreeHouse complaint asserted claims under the federal antitrust
laws and various state laws, contending that Keurig had monopolized
alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve
coffee pods. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages,
declaratory relief, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.
In March 2014, JBR, Inc. filed suit against Keurig in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.).
The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR, Inc. complaint
were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought
in the TreeHouse complaint.
Beginning in March 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on
behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of Keurig's
products in various federal district courts.
In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the
TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
"Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation").
Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed in July 2014.
An additional class action on behalf of indirect purchasers,
originally filed in the Circuit Court of Faulkner County, Arkansas
(Julie Rainwater et al. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.), was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation in November
2015.
In January 2019, McLane Company, Inc. filed suit against Keurig
(McLane Company, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the SDNY
asserting similar claims and also was transferred into the
Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation. In July 2021, BJ's Wholesale
Club, Inc. filed suit against Keurig (BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. v.
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.) in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York asserting similar claims and also was
transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation.
These actions are now pending in the SDNY (In re: Keurig Green
Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation). Discovery in
the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation commenced in December 2017.
In August 2021, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and Bi-Lo Holding LLC filed
suit against Keurig (Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. et. al. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc. et. al.) in the EDNY asserting similar claims
and was transferred into the Multidistrict Antitrust Litigation;
the complaint in this litigation has not been served.
Separately, a statement of claim was filed in September 2014
against Keurig and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club
Coffee L.P., a Canadian manufacturer of single serve beverage pods,
asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading
statements by Keurig.
In July 2020, Keurig reached an agreement with the putative
indirect purchaser class plaintiffs in the Multidistrict Antitrust
Litigation to settle the claims asserted in their complaint for $31
million.
The settlement class consists of individuals and entities in the
United States that purchased, from persons other than Keurig and
not for purposes of resale, Keurig manufactured or licensed single
serve beverage portion packs during the applicable class period
(beginning in September 2010 for most states).
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
December 2020, and the Company paid the settlement amount in
January 2021. Final approval of the settlement was granted by the
court in June 2021.
KDP intends to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits described
above. At this time, the Company is unable to predict the outcome
of these lawsuits, the potential loss or range of loss, if any,
associated with the resolution of these lawsuits or any potential
effect they may have on the Company or its operations.
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. engages in the brewing system and specialty
coffee businesses in the United States and Canada. The company
sources, produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other
beverages in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and K-Mug pods brands;
coffee in traditional packaging, including bags and fractional
packs; and other specialty beverages in pods. The company was
founded in 1981 and is based in Waterbury, Vermont. Keurig Dr
Pepper Inc. is a subsidiary of Acorn Holdings B.V.
KNAUF GIPS: Homeowners Slams Gypsum Drywall Defect
---------------------------------------------------
David M. Farnsworth, Eloise B. Farnsworth, Erin Peden, Zachary
Peden, Douglas Premoe, Iudok Premoe, Jeremy Skinner, Renee Skinner,
Casey Weems and Jennifer Weems, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated Plaintiffs v. Knauf Gips KG, Knauf
Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00329
(October 26, 2021, S.D. Miss.), seek redress under Mississippi
Consumer Protection Laws.
The complaint relates that Plaintiffs used gypsum drywalls
manufactured by Knauf. Said drywall allegedly caused corrosion to
air conditioning coils and refrigerator units, electrical wiring
and plumbing components and caused allergic reactions, coughing,
sinus and throat infection, eye irritation, respiratory problems
and other health concerns. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
James V. Doyle, Jr., Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Tel: (205) 533-9500
Fax: (844) 638-5812
Email: jimmy@doylefirm.com
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS: Hecht Suit Moved From S.D. Ind. to W.D. Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ALAN HECHT and JACKIE HECHT, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS
N.V., PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC, PHILIPS HOLDING USA INC., and
PHILIPS RS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00162, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on November 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
assigned Case No. 2:21-cv-01590-JFC to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged strict liability,
negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach
of express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose, breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, loss of consortium by manufacturing, marketing,
distributing, and seling defective Continuous Positive Airway
Pressure (CPAP) and BiLevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiLevel PAP)
devices and mechanical ventilators for sleep and home respiratory
care.
Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a health technology company with its
principal executive offices at Philips Center, Amstelplein 2, 1096
BC Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Philips North America LLC is a health technology company with its
principal place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Philips Holding USA Inc. is a holding company with its principal
place of business located at 222 Jacobs Street, Floor 3, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Philips RS North America LLC is a company that manufactures and
markets medical devices with its principal place of business
located at 6501 Living Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristina Anderson, Esq.
HENSLEY LEGAL GROUP, PC
117 East Washington Street, Suite 200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 472-3333
Facsimile: (317) 472-3340
E-mail: kanderson@hensleylegal.com
KPMG INTERNATIONAL: Faces New ERISA Class Action in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for planadviser, reports that a new
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit has been
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
naming as defendants the audit and tax advisory firm KPMG,
alongside several related parties from inside the company,
including its board of directors.
According to the complaint, at all times during the proposed class
period, KPMG's defined contribution (DC) retirement plan had at
least $3.5 billion in assets under management (AUM). At the end of
2018 and 2019, according to the plaintiffs, the plan had more than
$4.7 billion and $6 billion, respectively, in AUM. The plaintiffs
say these figures qualify the plan as a jumbo plan—one which
should have been able to negotiate highly competitive rates for
investment and administrative services.
"As a jumbo plan, the plan had substantial bargaining power
regarding the fees and expenses that were charged against
participants' investments," the complaint states. "The defendants,
however, did not try to reduce the plan's expenses or exercise
appropriate judgment to scrutinize each investment option that was
offered in the plan to ensure it was prudent."
In its focus and structure, the lawsuit closely mirrors many others
that have been filed by the law firm Capozzi Adler. The firm has
been involved in a growing number of ERISA fiduciary breach
lawsuits, many of them targeting employers in the health care
sector, with mixed results.
Here, the plaintiffs allege the defendants failed to use the lowest
cost share class for many of the mutual funds within the plan,
despite their lower fees.
"Because the institutional share classes are otherwise identical to
the investor share classes, but with lower fees, a prudent
fiduciary would know immediately that a switch is necessary," the
complaint alleges. "Thus, the manner that is reasonable and
appropriate to the particular investment action, and strategies
involved in this case would mandate a prudent fiduciary -- who
indisputably has knowledge of institutional share classes and that
such share classes provide identical investments at lower costs --
to switch share classes immediately."
The plaintiffs suggest the defendants' mismanagement of the plan,
to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a
breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty.
"Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary
and cost the plan and its participants millions of dollars," the
complaint states.
KPMG has not yet responded to a request for comment about the
lawsuit. These cases have been met with varied results, depending
on the facts at hand and the views of the courts asked to review
them. For example, Prudential recently defeated a similarly
structured lawsuit based on the plaintiffs' failure to plausibly
establish standing. The same result was reached in an ERISA lawsuit
filed against TriHealth. On the other hand, the defendants'
dismissal motions failed in a similar suit targeting Allstate.
Broadly speaking, the success of such suits ties back to the
ability (or lack thereof) of the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the
payment of high fees or the provision of underperforming
investments was likely the result of fiduciary breaches. In other
words, merely stating that a plan paid fees that were higher than
its peers or offered investments that underperformed other possible
investment options is not enough to establish standing under ERISA.
[GN]
KRAFT HEINZ: Dismissal of Osborne Suit Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2021, that the plaintiffs in
Osborne v. Employee Benefits Administration Board of Kraft Heinz,
et al., filed a notice of appeal on the court's decision granting
the company's motion to dismiss.
The company's Employee Benefits Administration Board and certain of
The Kraft Heinz Company's current and former officers and employees
are currently defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security
Act ("ERISA") class action lawsuit, Osborne v. Employee Benefits
Administration Board of Kraft Heinz, et al., which is pending in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit purport to represent a class of current
and former employees who were participants in and beneficiaries of
various retirement plans which were co-invested in a commingled
investment fund known as the Kraft Foods Savings Plan Master Trust
during the period of May 4, 2017 through February 21, 2019.
An amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2019. The amended
complaint alleges violations of Section 502 of ERISA based on
alleged breaches of obligations as fiduciaries subject to ERISA by
allowing the Master Trust to continue investing in our common
stock, and alleges additional breaches of fiduciary duties by
current and former officers for their purported failure to monitor
Master Trust fiduciaries.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which
motion the court granted in an order dated August 23, 2021, before
entering judgment in favor of the Company on September 14, 2021.
The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 13, 2021.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
KRAFT HEINZ: Loses Bid to Junk Union Asset Management Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kraft Heinz Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 25, 2021, that the motion to
dismiss filed in the consolidated securities class action suit
entitled, Union Asset Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft
Heinz Company, et al., has been denied.
The Kraft Heinz Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are currently defendants in a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Union Asset
Management Holding AG, et al. v. The Kraft Heinz Company, et al.
The consolidated amended class action complaint, which was filed on
August 14, 2020 and also names 3G Capital, Inc. and several of its
subsidiaries and affiliates ("3G Entities") as defendants, asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
based on allegedly materially false or misleading statements and
omissions in public statements, press releases, investor
presentations, earnings calls, Company documents, and SEC filings
regarding the Company's business, financial results, and internal
controls, and further alleges the 3G Entities engaged in insider
trading and misappropriated the Company's material, non-public
information.
The plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action complaint, which motion the court denied in an order
dated August 11, 2021.
The Kraft Heinz Company manufactures and markets food and beverage
products in the United States, Canada, Europe, and internationally.
Its products include condiments and sauces, cheese and dairy
products, meals, meats, refreshment beverages, coffee, and other
grocery products. The company was formerly known as H.J. Heinz
Holding Corporation and changed its name to The Kraft Heinz Company
in July 2015. The Kraft Heinz Company was founded in 1869 and is
headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Schall Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on Nov. 2 disclosed that it is investigating claims on behalf of
investors of Lockheed Martin Corporation ("Lockheed Martin" or "the
Company") (NYSE: LMT) for violations of the securities laws.
The investigation focuses on whether the Company issued false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information
pertinent to investors. Lockheed Martin announced its third-quarter
2021 financial results on October 26, 2021. As part of its report,
the Company stated that it would take a $1.7 billion non-cash
pension settlement charge. This charge decreased the Company's net
income by $4.72 per share. Based on this news, shares of Lockheed
Martin fell by almost 12% on the same day.
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.
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.
310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com
www.schallfirm.com [GN]
LYFT INC: Dec. 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
In Re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG
Class Action
SUMMARY NOTICE OF
PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To:
All persons and entities who, during the period from March 28, 2019
through August 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft")
issued and traceable to Lyft's IPO Registration Statement.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.
In the Action, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lyft, Inc.
and certain executives and members of Lyft's Board of Directors
violated federal securities laws because the Registration Statement
issued in connection with Lyft's Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
contained material misrepresentations, or omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading,
in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiff's allegations, and deny any
wrongdoing or violation of law. Please note: at this time, there is
no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. Trial in this Action
is currently scheduled for December 5, 2022.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential Class Members. If you have not yet received
the full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
downloading it from www.LyftIPOLitigation.com or by contacting the
Notice Administrator at:
Lyft IPO Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 888-9031
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:
Jacob Walker
Block & Leviton LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 398-5600
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Lyft common stock, and any research you did regarding your
investment in Lyft. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in
this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you
move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address,
please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your
new address.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than December 13, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California
LYFT INC: December 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
In Re Lyft, Inc. Securities Litigation
Case No. 4:19-cv-02690-HSG
Class Action
SUMMARY NOTICE OF
PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION
To:
All persons and entities who, during the period from March 28, 2019
through August 19, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), purchased
or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lyft, Inc. ("Lyft")
issued and traceable to Lyft's IPO Registration Statement.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") has been certified to proceed as a class
action on behalf of the Class as defined above.
In the Action, Lead Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Lyft, Inc.
and certain executives and members of Lyft's Board of Directors
violated federal securities laws because the Registration Statement
issued in connection with Lyft's Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
contained material misrepresentations, or omitted material facts
necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading,
in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
Defendants deny all of Lead Plaintiff's allegations, and deny any
wrongdoing or violation of law. Please note: at this time, there is
no judgment, settlement, or monetary recovery. Trial in this Action
is currently scheduled for December 5, 2022.
IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION. A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the
"Notice") is currently being mailed to persons who have been
identified as potential Class Members. If you have not yet received
the full printed Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by
downloading it from www.LyftIPOLitigation.com or by contacting the
Notice Administrator at:
Lyft IPO Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 888-9031
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
following representatives of Class Counsel:
Jacob Walker
Block & Leviton LLP
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 398-5600
If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class. If you want to remain a member of the
Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than to
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings
in Lyft common stock, and any research you did regarding your
investment in Lyft. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in
this Action, including all past, present, and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you
move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or incorrect address,
please send the Notice Administrator written notification of your
new address.
If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court in this Action, however you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class. To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than December 13, 2021, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Further information regarding this notice may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court for the
Northern District of California [GN]
MASTERCARD INC: Appeals Class Certification of ATM Surcharge Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that it has appealed the
trial court's order granting class certification of the Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") surcharage suits.
In October 2011, a trade association of independent ATM operators
and 13 independent ATM operators filed a complaint styled as a
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia against both Mastercard and Visa (the "ATM Operators
Complaint").
Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM
terminals that operate in the United States with the discretion to
determine the price of the ATM access fee for the terminals they
operate. Plaintiffs allege that Mastercard and Visa have violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that require ATM
operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges for
transactions processed over Mastercard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble
the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged
violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against Mastercard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").
The claims in these actions largely mirror the allegations made in
the ATM Operators Complaint, although these complaints seek damages
on behalf of consumers of ATM services who pay allegedly inflated
ATM fees at both bank and non-bank ATM operators as a result of the
defendants' ATM rules. Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary
relief equal to treble the damages they claim to have sustained as
a result of the alleged violations and their costs of suit,
including attorneys' fees.
In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted Mastercard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order
in August 2015 and sent the case back for further proceedings. In
September 2019, the plaintiffs filed their motions for class
certification in which the plaintiffs, in aggregate, allege over $1
billion in damages against all of the defendants.
In August 2021, the trial court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs request for class certification.
Visa and Mastercard's request for permission to appeal the
certification decision to the appellate court was granted. Briefing
on the appeal is expected to take place over the course of 2022.
Mastercard intends to vigorously defend against both the
plaintiffs' liability and damages claims.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MASTERCARD INC: Bid for Class Status in TCPA Class Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mastercard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the motion for
class certification in the class action suit involving an alleged
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") violation, is pending.
Mastercard is a defendant in a TCPA class action pending in
Florida.
The plaintiffs are individuals and businesses who allege that
approximately 381,000 unsolicited faxes were sent to them
advertising a Mastercard co-brand card issued by First Arkansas
Bank ("FAB").
The TCPA provides for uncapped statutory damages of $500 per fax.
Mastercard has asserted various defenses to the claims, and has
notified FAB of an indemnity claim that it has (which FAB has
disputed).
In June 2018, the district court granted Mastercard's motion to
stay the proceedings until the Federal Communications Commission
makes a decision on the application of the TCPA to online fax
services.
In December 2019, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
issued a declaratory ruling clarifying that the TCPA does not apply
to faxes sent to online fax services that are received via e-mail.
As a result of the ruling, the stay of the litigation was lifted in
January 2020.
In January 2021, the magistrate judge serving on the district court
issued an opinion recommending that the district court judge deny
plaintiffs' class certification motion.
In light of an appellate court decision, issued subsequent to the
magistrate's recommendation, the district court judge instructed
the parties to re-brief the motion for class certification, and the
motion has now been fully briefed.
Mastercard Incorporated, a technology company, provides transaction
processing and other payment-related products and services in the
United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1966
and is headquartered in Purchase, New York.
MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Suit Over Lack of COVID Protective Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre a reports that five
McDonald's workers in Chicago filed a class action lawsuit against
the chain on Oct. 26, accusing it of failing to adopt government
safety guidance on COVID-19 and endangering employees and their
families.
McDonald's failed to provide adequate hand sanitizer, gloves and
masks and has not notified its staff when an employee has become
infected with the new coronavirus, according to a copy of the
lawsuit provided by a spokesman for the workers.
McDonald's said in a statement that the allegations were inaccurate
and that safety, including wellness checks and protective gear, was
a top priority.
The workers requested the Illinois state court issue an injunction,
which would make McDonald's stop requiring workers to reuse masks,
mandate face coverings for customers and require the company to
inform employees if a coworker becomes infected. [GN]
MEREDITH COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Personal Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MEREDITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No.
4:21-cv-00344-SMR-HCA (S.D. Iowa, Nov. 4, 2021), is brought against
the Defendant for its nonconsensual and plainly unlawful use and
selling of its customers' personas and sensitive personal
information in violation of the Puerto Rico's Right of Publicity
Act (the "PRRPA").
The complaint alleges that the Defendant sold and continues to sell
subscriber mailing lists containing Plaintiff's and the other Class
members' names and likenesses, along with other highly sensitive
personal information, to various parties on the open market,
including to data miners, data aggregators, data appenders, data
cooperatives, list brokers, aggressive marketing companies, and
various other third parties. The lists Meredith sold identified, by
name, address, and other personal attributes, Plaintiff and every
other Puerto Rico subscriber to its various magazine publications,
including Allrecipes and Real Simple magazines to which Plaintiff
subscribed. Meredith's monetization of Plaintiff's and its other
Puerto Rico subscribers' names and likenesses in this way was done
in direct violation of the PRRPA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff subscribed to Meredith's Allrecipes and Real Simple
magazines while residing in, a citizen of, and physically present
in Puerto Rico.
Meredith is the publisher of, among others, the magazines Better
Homes and Gardens, Living the Country Life, Entertainment Weekly,
Food & Wine, Health, Midwest Living, People, Parents, Real Simple,
Shape, Southern Living, Travel + Leisure, Wood, FamilyFun, Rachel
Ray in Season, and InStyle.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
Gary W. Kendell, Esq.
SHINDLER, ANDERSON, GOPLERUD & WEESE, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Phone: (515) 223-4567
Fax: (515) 223-8887
Email: goplerud@sagwlaw.com
kendell@sagwlaw.com
- and -
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
HEDIN HALL LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 357-2107
Fax: (305) 200-8801
Email: aravindran@hedinhall.com
fhedin@hedinhall.com
MEREDITH CORP: 8th Cir. Affirms Securities Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on
October 18, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Iowa dismissing a putative securities
class action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against a media company and certain of its executives. City of
Plantation Police Officers Pension Fund v. Meredith Corp., - F.4th
-, 2021 WL 4823411 (8th Cir. 2021). Plaintiff alleged that the
company made misrepresentations in connection with the expected
benefits from its acquisition of a magazine publisher. The district
court dismissed the action with prejudice, holding that all but one
of the challenged statements was not sufficiently alleged to be
false, and that scienter was not adequately alleged for the
remaining statement. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
The Court first explained that "137 out of 138 statements listed in
the amended complaint were either (1) statements identified as
forward looking and accompanied by meaningful cautionary
statements, (2) corporate puffery, or (3) forward-looking
statements that the complaint's allegations do not imply by strong
inference were made with actual knowledge of their falsity." Id. at
*2. For example, the Court noted that statements about "hit[ting]
the ground running," "implementing . . . proven strategies,
standards, and discipline," being "on track," being "very pleased
with the integration work so far," and occupying an
"industry-leading position" were "all paradigmatic examples of the
kind of ‘vague' and ‘optimistic' rhetoric that constitutes
corporate puffery." Id.
The Court next addressed a statement by the company's CEO that the
company had "fully integrated [its] HR, finance, legal and IT
functions," which plaintiff alleged was false on the basis of a
confidential witness who claimed that employees of the acquired
magazine publisher operated on different finance software systems
from the rest of the company at the time the statement was made.
Id. While noting that this statement "comes closer than the other
137" because it was not forward-looking, the Court held that, even
assuming the statement was false, plaintiff's allegations did not
"give rise to a strong inference of severe recklessness." Id. at
*3. The Court emphasized that plaintiff had not alleged that the
confidential witness had any insight into what the CEO knew about
the software systems; nor did plaintiff allege facts suggesting
that the use of two software systems was so obvious that it was "an
extreme departure from the standards of ordinary care" for the CEO
to ignore that fact. Id. at *3. The Court concluded it was more
plausible to infer that the CEO simply had limited information
about the software systems used by the legacy firms' finance
departments. Id.
The Court also affirmed the district court's denial of leave to
amend. Because the district court provided no "meaningful
explanation" for denying leave to amend, the Court "considered the
issue of futility de novo" and concluded that plaintiff had failed
to offer a proposed amended complaint to the district court. Id.
While plaintiff pointed to a new allegation contained in an
attachment to its opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, the
Court determined that amendment would still be futile because the
new allegation "merely supplement[ed]" a former employee's
statements in the complaint about reports certain company
executives may have seen and did not affect the Court's analysis.
Id. [GN]
MEREDITH CORPORATION: McKinney Files Suit in E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Meredith Corporation.
The case is styled as Sharon McKinney, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Meredith Corporation, Case No.
1:21-cv-01615-NONE-HBK (E.D. Cal., Nov. 4, 2021).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.
Meredith Corporation -- https://www.meredith.com/ -- is an American
media conglomerate based in Des Moines, Iowa that owns magazines,
television stations, websites, and radio stations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Fax: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
MILAN LASER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Jacobson Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHELBY JACOBSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MILAN LASER CORPORATE LLC; and MILAN LASER
WISCONSIN, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01242-SCD (E.D. Wis.,
Oct. 25, 2021) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as client specialist.
MILAN LASER CORPORATE LLC is a laser hair removal company. The
Company offers permanent laser hair reduction services and other
treatment packages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James A. Walcheske, Esq.
Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
David M. Potteiger, Esq.
WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
Brookfield, WI 53005
Telephone: (262) 780-1953
Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
Email: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com
NEW PARK TOWER: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Romero Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM A. ROMERO, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff v. NEW PARK TOWER, LLC, ALVARO SANCHEZ, and CHRISTINE
SANCHEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-62166-RAR (S.D.
Fla., October 20, 2021) alleges the Defendants of unlawful payroll
practices and procedures that violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action for
himself and all other similarly situated current and former
employees to recover from the Defendants all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff claims that while he was employed by the Defendants
as a non-exempted, full-time, and hourly-paid employee, he
regularly worked a minimum of 44 hours every week. Although the
Defendant paid him on-the-clock overtime hours at his regular rate,
the Defendant did not pay him for the work he performed
off-the-clock hours. As a result, the Plaintiff did not receive
accurate overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times his regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40
in a workweek, the Plaintiff alleges.
New Park Tower, LLC offers beautiful apartment homes for monthly
rental (12 month lease). Alvaro Sanchez and Christine Sanchez are
owners, partners, officer, president and manager of the Corporate
Defendant. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
PBF ENERGY: Continues to Defend Goldstein Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
PBF Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2021, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2021, that the company
continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Arnold Goldstein,
et al. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al.
On February 17, 2017, in Arnold Goldstein, et al. v. Exxon Mobil
Corporation, et al., we and PBF LLC, and the company's
subsidiaries, PBF Western Region LLC and Torrance Refining Company
LLC and the manager of our Torrance refinery along with ExxonMobil
were named as defendants in a class action and representative
action complaint filed on behalf of Arnold Goldstein, John Covas,
Gisela Janette La Bella and others similarly situated.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles and alleges negligence, strict
liability, ultra-hazardous activity, a continuing private nuisance,
a permanent private nuisance, a continuing public nuisance, a
permanent public nuisance and trespass resulting from the February
18, 2015 electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") explosion at the
Torrance refinery which was then owned and operated by ExxonMobil.
The operation of the Torrance refinery by the PBF entities
subsequent to our acquisition in July 2016 is also referenced in
the complaint.
To the extent that plaintiffs' claims relate to the ESP explosion,
ExxonMobil retained responsibility for any liabilities that would
arise from the lawsuit pursuant to the agreement relating to the
acquisition of the Torrance refinery.
On July 2, 2018, the court granted leave to plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Complaint alleging groundwater contamination. With
the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs added an
additional plaintiff, Hany Youssef.
On March 18, 2019, the class certification hearing was held and the
court took the matter under submission. On April 1, 2019, the court
issued an order denying class certification.
On April 15, 2019, plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to
Appeal the Order Denying Motion for Class Certification. On May 3,
2019, plaintiffs filed a Motion with the Central District Court for
Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class Certification. On May 22,
2019, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion.
The company filed its opposition to the motion on July 29, 2019.
The plaintiffs' motion was heard on September 23, 2019. On October
15, 2019, the judge granted certification to two limited classes of
property owners with Youssef as the sole class representative and
named plaintiff, rejecting two other proposed subclasses based on
negligence and on strict liability for ultrahazardous activities.
The certified subclasses relate to trespass claims for ground
contamination and nuisance for air emissions. On February 5, 2021,
the company's motion for Limited Extension of Discovery Cut-Off and
a Motion by plaintiffs for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint
were heard by the court. On February 9, 2021, the court issued an
order taking both motions under submission pending additional
discovery and briefing related to plaintiff Youssef and whether a
new class representative should be substituted.
The court has also ordered that the rebuttal expert disclosure
deadline, the expert discovery cut-off, the motion hearing cut-off,
and all other case deadlines be stayed pending the court's decision
as to whether the case can proceed with a new class representative
and whether defendants will be permitted to conduct additional soil
vapor sampling in the ground subclass area.
On March 6, 2021, plaintiff Youssef's second deposition was taken.
On March 22, 2021, based on plaintiff Youssef's deposition, the
company filed its brief requesting the court dismiss plaintiff
Youssef's claims for nuisance and trespass and deny plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to substitute a
new named plaintiff or class representative.
On April 5, 2021, plaintiffs filed a brief regarding their motion.
On May 5, 2021, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint for the third time to substitute Navarro for Youssef.
On May 12, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint
("TAC") that contained significant changes and new claims,
including individual claims, that were not included in the motion
for leave to amend plaintiffs presented to the Court.
On June 9, 2021, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss/Strike the
TAC. On June 23, 2021, plaintiffs filed their opposition to our
Motion to Dismiss/Strike, to which the company filed its reply on
July 2, 2021. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss/Strike the TAC was
held on August 2, 2021 and the court ordered that the TAC be struck
and that the parties meet and confer with respect to the complaint.
After meeting and conferring, plaintiffs agreed to submit a
corrected TAC with changes reflecting the removal of Youssef and
the substitution of Navarro as the named Plaintiff. On August 23,
2021, the Court approved the parties' stipulation to take Navarro's
deposition on September 23, 2021.
Also, on August 23, 2021, the Court approved the parties'
stipulation to continue the pretrial dates with the new deadlines
as follows: defendants to take discovery as to Navarro's adequacy
to serve as the class representative due on October 1, 2021;
plaintiffs' motion to substitute class representative due on
October 8, 2021; defendants' opposition to motion to substitute
class representative due on October 29, 2021; plaintiffs' reply in
support of motion to substitute class representative due on
November 15, 2021; hearing on motion for substitution of class
representative scheduled for November 22, 2021, or such other date
as ordered by the Court; and the parties to submit a proposed trial
schedule, if necessary, within fourteen days of the court's order
on Plaintiffs' motion to substitute class representative.
On September 7, 2021, the company filed its Answer to the corrected
TAC. On September 23, 2021, Navarro's deposition was taken. On
October 8, 2021, plaintiffs filed their Motion to Appoint Navarro
as Class Representative. The company's opposition to this motion is
due October 29, 2021.
PBF said, "We presently believe the outcome will not have a
material impact on our financial position, results of operations,
or cash flows."
PBF Energy Inc., together with its subsidiaries, engages in
refining and supplying petroleum products. The company operates in
two segments, Refining and Logistics. PBF Energy Inc. was founded
in 2008 and is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.
PHOENIX CHILDREN'S: Faces Employees Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Barry, writing for 3TV/CBS 5, reports that patients have a
right to privacy when they go to the hospital, and so do the people
that work there. However, something appears to have gone wrong at
Phoenix Children's Hospital, which just got hit with a class action
lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims that on October 15th, PCH sent an email to 368
employees that revealed the COVID-19 exemption vaccination status
of hundreds of staff members.
Phoenix attorney Alexander Kolodin represents the lead plaintiffs
in the lawsuit. "Here we are dealing with an employer-employee
context and not a doctor patient context, but it's a very similar
kind of standard," said Kolodin.
Some parents, like Kaye Lawson, are upset about unvaccinated
employees working around sick children. "Parents don't need this
extra burden. It's enough to just keep your kid alive," said
Lawson.
Lawson has spent years at PCH. Her son began treatment for blood
cancer when he was 2 years old in 2008, and was in and out of the
hospital for years after; relapsing twice, needing 12-13 surgeries,
and eventually a bone marrow transplant. "The thought of everything
we went through, especially when our son was the most vulnerable
when he had his transplant, the thought of anybody walking through
that door who was a potential risk…" Lawson said.
Kolodin believes the hospital's disclosure was a clear case of
negligence and a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuit alleges that doctors, nurses and healthcare workers
suffered emotional distress and humiliation.
Phoenix Children's Hospital
Kolodin is in the process of filing a formal complaint against the
hospital. He also said he is "strongly considering" a class-action
lawsuit.
"It's no secret that the COVID vaccination is extremely
contentious, a personal and political issue in our society," said
Kolodin. "People judge people who have religious objections to
vaccinations, even though the law allows you to have such
objections. People judge people even who have legitimate medical
reasons for not getting vaccinated, and nowhere is judgement more
acute than in a healthcare setting."
Lawson said even though her son isn't there as often as he used to
be, it's scary not knowing who is unvaccinated at the hospital
around the kids, especially transplant patients. "Those kids just
have no immune system and they're there for long periods of time.
They're the ones I think about most when I think about COVID,"
Lawson said.
To Lawson, she said the mistake was eye opening to parents who want
to feel their kids are as protected from COVID-19 as possible. "If
you don't think that kids safety should be first, you should not be
working at Phoenix Children's Hospital," she said.
Phoenix Children's sent Arizona's Family this statement:
"As part of its COVID-19 vaccination program, Phoenix Children's
engaged in an extensive process to evaluate and provide qualified
employees with medical and religious exemptions to its vaccination
policy. For those employees who were granted accommodations, we
developed appropriate workplace accommodations designed to protect
all staff, visitors and our vulnerable patient population. In the
process of communicating internal safety protocols related to such
accommodations, the employee distribution list for one email
message was inadvertently visible, instead of blind carbon copying
the recipients. Since learning of our administrative error, we
immediately informed affected employees of the error, extended our
sincere apologies and explained that efforts had been taken to
avoid similar mistakes in the future." [GN]
RAYDON CORP: Judge Inks $2.4MM ERISA Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Stone, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal
judge signed off on a $2.4 million settlement resolving a class
action accusing Raydon Corp. of overcharging employees who sunk
retirement savings into the company's stock, after two payments to
plaintiffs were taken out of the pact. [GN]
RENREN INC: $300MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Dec. 9
---------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement for at least $300 million (the "Settlement")
has been reached in a shareholder derivative action (the "Lawsuit")
pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York
County (the "Court") on behalf of Renren, Inc. ("Renren"). The
Lawsuit is called In re Renren Inc. Derivative Litig., Index No.
653594/2018. The Judge presiding over the Lawsuit is Justice Andrew
Borrok.
The Court authorized this summary notice. Before any money is paid,
the Court will hold a virtual Settlement Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on
December 9, 2021 and decide whether to approve the Settlement.
If you own Renren Class A ordinary shares and/or Renren ADS (NYSE:
RENN), your rights will be affected by these legal proceedings. If
the Court approves the Settlement, you will be forever barred from
contesting the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
Settlement and related matters. You will also be barred from
pursuing certain released derivative claims, as defined the
Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 7, 2021 (the
"Stipulation"). If Defendants seek a release of direct claims held
by Renren Shareholders and the Court approves such a release, then
direct claims you hold will also be released.
What's this about?
The Lawsuit alleged that certain current and/or former Renren
insiders and others, directly or indirectly, harmed Renren in
connection with a series of integrated transactions in 2018
involving the transfer of certain of Renren's investment assets at
an undervalued price, and that in 2019, certain interests in one of
the investments was fraudulently conveyed. The defendants in the
Lawsuit deny that they did anything wrong. The Court has not
decided which side was right. But both sides agreed to the
Settlement to resolve the Lawsuit. More information regarding the
Lawsuit and the Settlement is described in the Notice available at
the Settlement website at www.RenrenSettlement.com.
What does the Settlement provide?
The Settlement includes changes to Renren's corporate governance
and the creation of a settlement fund in the aggregate amount of at
least $300 million. That amount will be used to pay the costs of
administering the Settlement, and any legal fees and expenses of
counsel for the plaintiffs, as may be ordered by the Court. The
remainder of the fund will be distributed on a pro rata basis to
Renren shareholders and ADS holders as of a Record Date. The Record
Date will be determined later based on whether and when the Court
approves the Settlement, when such approval is no longer subject to
appeal or review, and among other things. Renren will file a Form
6-K with the SEC announcing the Record Date once the Record Date is
set. The Stipulation, which describes all of the details about the
Settlement, is available at the Settlement website at
www.RenrenSettlement.com.
How to attend the Settlement Hearing?
The Court will hold a Settlement Hearing at 9:30 a.m. on December
9, 2021. The Court will hold the Settlement Hearing as a virtual
hearing online. Login instructions for how to attend the hearing
will be posted on the Settlement website at
www.RenrenSettlement.com. You are invited, but are not required, to
attend the hearing.
What are your other options?
If you are a current record or beneficial owner of Renren Class A
ordinary shares and/or Renren ADSs, and you continue to own such
stock through the date of the Settlement Hearing, you can object to
the Settlement if you don't like any part of it, including the
request by Plaintiffs' Counsel for fees and reimbursement of
expenses. Your objection must be received by the Court by November
24, 2021. More information regarding how to object is described in
the Notice available at the Settlement website at
www.RenrenSettlement.com.
Questions?
Please visit www.RenrenSettlement.com to read the Notice for more
information and to obtain login instructions for how to attend the
Settlement Hearing. You may also email info@RenrenSettlement.com or
call toll-free 1-855-675-3082.
RESTORE IT: Lezcano Seeks Restoration Employees' Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case, DIOSLEDY LEZCANO, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. RESTORE IT ALL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:21-cv-62172 (S.D. Fla., October 20, 2021) arises from the
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a non-exempted and
full-time restoration employee from approximately March 1, 2019 to
September 21, 2021.
The Plaintiff claims that despite working more than 40 hours per
week, the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. In addition, the
Defendant allegedly failed to keep track of the hours the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated restoration employees have worked.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action for
himself and all other similarly situated restoration employees to
recover regular unpaid half-time overtime wages for every hour
worked over 40 during his entire employment, retaliatory damages,
liquidated damages, and any other relief as allowable by law.
Restore It All, Inc. provides restoration services, such as
asbestos removal, fire and smoke damage remediation, flood and
water damage remediation, and other related services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
RUSSIA: Children of the Gulag Files Class Action v. State of Duma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Meduza reports that a group of more than 20 children of victims of
Soviet-era political repressions have filed a class-action lawsuit
against the State Duma with the Russian Supreme Court.
The claim was filed over the parliament's alleged failure to fulfil
a 2019 Constitutional Court ruling, according to which children
born in the Gulag system or in exile have the right to receive
housing in the cities where their families lived at the time they
were persecuted.
The Memorial Human Rights Center told Meduza that 23 plaintiffs
joined the lawsuit, who are between 64 and 89 years of age; another
74-year-old plaintiff died shortly before the claim was filed.
The class-action suit demands that the Russian State Duma's
inaction regarding the implementation of the 2019 Constitutional
Court ruling be deemed illegal, as it is preventing the plaintiffs
from returning to their original place of residence and receiving
housing there.
The claim involves plaintiffs seeking to return not only to Moscow
and St. Petersburg, but also the Oryol and Rostov regions, the
Krasnodar and Stavropol territories, and the Crimean peninsula.
Memorial also noted that since the class-action suit involves more
than 20 plaintiffs, they can act on behalf of everyone who has
faced a similar problem.
Russia adopted a Federal Law "On the rehabilitation of victims of
political repressions" in 1991, securing the right to housing for
rehabilitated victims, as well as any children born in the Gulag
system or in exile, in the cities where they or their families used
to live. However, in 2004, Russia's regions were granted the right
to establish additional restrictions on the provision of housing
for these victims. As a result, so-called "children of the Gulag"
seeking housing in Moscow were placed in the general queue for
social housing, leaving them to wait as long as 25 years.
In December 2019, Russia's Constitutional Court ruled in favor of
three daughters of repressed Moscow residents who were requesting
compensation for housing lost when their families were deported
from the Russian capital. In its ruling, the court ordered
lawmakers to make the necessary changes to the corresponding
legislation.
In the summer of 2020, the Russian government submitted a draft law
to the State Duma on preserving the powers of the regional
authorities on the issue of housing allocation. In practice, this
meant that the children of victims of repression would still end up
on the general waitlist for social housing. The bill passed in the
first reading, but wasn't adopted in the end.
Lawmakers from A Just Russia also put forward an alternative bill,
proposing that the children of repression victims be allocated
housing at the expense of the federal government within a one-year
period. The State Duma rejected this bill, as well. [GN]
SHAW BUTANE: Faces Lee Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LEE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHAW BUTANE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
9:21-cv-00278 (E.D. Tex., October 20, 2021) is a collective action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal pay
practices and policies that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant as a delivery driver
from January 2021 until July 2021.
According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly classified the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated Delivery Drivers as exempt
from overtime compensation. Although they regularly worked more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not pay them their
lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one and
one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff brings this complaint
seeking to recover all unpaid overtime compensation and all
available relief pursuant to the FLSA.
Shaw Butane, Inc. provides propane gas delivery to residential and
commercial clients throughout East Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
819 N. Upper Broadway
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Tel: (361) 452-1279
Fax: (361) 452-1284
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
SLOW LORIS: Encarnacion Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------
Erik Encarnacion, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Slow Loris Corp. and Tae Hyun Han,
Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-05951, (E.D. N.Y., October 26, 2021),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due to unpaid overtime and
spread-of-hours premium, statutory penalties, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to New York Labor Law and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Defendants collectively own and operate a Korean/Japanese
restaurant "Slow Loris" in Brooklyn where Encarnacion worked as a
sushi maker. He claims to have worked 66 hours per workweek without
being paid overtime premiums for hours over 40 per week. [BN]
Plaintiffs are represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 465-1188
Fax: (212) 465-1181
SOLARI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Properly Pay Wages, Welch Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case, HERMAN WELCH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated aggrieved employees, and the general public,
Plaintiff v. SOLARI ENTERPRISES, INC., a California corporation;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 21STCV38674
(Cal. Sup. Ct., October 20, 2021) alleges the Defendants of
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt employee from approximately October 21, 2019 through
September 2, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants have failed to provide him and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees with meal periods and with
rest periods, and failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal
and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay;
-- The Defendants have failed to pay them at least minimum
wage for all hours worked, and overtime wages and/or double time
wages at the legally mandated overtime rate;
-- The Defendants have failed to include all applicable
renumeration in calculating the regular rate of pay, thereby
failing to properly pay them overtime and/or double time wages;
-- The Defendants have failed to reimburse them for all
necessary business expenses;
-- The Defendants have failed to provide them with accurate
written wage statements; and
-- The Defendants have failed to timely pay them all of their
final wages upon separation of employment.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees against the Defendants to recover
civil and statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, litigation
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other related relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Solari Enterprises, Inc. provides construction services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
Thomas Segal, Esq.
Farrah Grant, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (310) 888-7771
Fax: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
thomas@setarehlaw.com
T-MOBILE US: Files Bid to Pause Proposed Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for BloombergLaw, reports that T-Mobile US
Inc. doubled down on its bid to pause a proposed data breach class
action pending against it, arguing that because there's a strong
likelihood a multidistrict litigation will be formed in less than
two months, instituting a stay makes sense.
Plaintiffs in 20 related cases have agreed to stays, with 19
already entered by nine different courts, T-Mobile argued in its
reply in support of its motion to stay proceedings filed on Oct. 26
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
Attorneys representing plaintiff Henry Thang didn't immediately
respond to a request for comment. [GN]
TAP WORLDWIDE: Faces Gomez Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------
GILBERTO GOMEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TAP WORLDWIDE, LLC d/b/a 4 WHEEL PARTS
PERFORMANCE CENTER; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 21STCV40720 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., November 4, 2021)
is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
Private Attorneys' General Act of 2004 including failure to pay
wages for all hours worked at the employees' minimum wage rate,
failure to pay wages for all overtime hours worked at employees'
overtime rate, failure to provide all legally required and/or
legally compliant meal periods and/or pay meal period premium
wages, failure to provide all legally required and/or legally
complaint rest periods and pay rest period premium wages, failure
to timely pay earned wages during employment, failure to provide
complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay
all unpaid wages following separation of employment.
The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee in Los Angeles, California since July 14, 2017.
Tap Worldwide, LLC, doing business as 4 Wheel Parts Performance
Center, is a distributor of automotive parts located in California.
[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
whteam@lelawfirm.com
TOOTSIE ROLL: Judge Tosses Class Action Lawsuit Over Candy Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a New Jersey
federal judge is less receptive to class action lawyers suing over
empty space in candy boxes than one of her colleagues in
California.
Judge Anne Thompson on Oct. 18 dismissed claims made by the law
firms Shepherd Finkelman and Clarkson Law Firm, who sued Tootsie
Roll on behalf of plaintiffs who say they were misled about how
much candy is in boxes of Junior Mints and Sugar Babies.
A California federal magistrate judge in July let the Clarkson Law
Firm's case in San Francisco move forward, denying the company's
motion to dismiss. But Judge Thompson granted Tootsie Roll's
dismissal request in the New Jersey case, relying somewhat on a
similar case tossed in New York.
"Furthermore, the net weight of the candy, both in metric and
standard measurements, is displayed on the front of the Products'
boxes in easily discernable font," Thompson wrote.
"And Plaintiff does not suggest that the net weight, serving size,
or number of servings figures on the Products are not accurate or
visible to a consumer. As the Court in another Junior Mints
slack-fill case explained, a consumer 'can easily calculate the
number of candies contained in the Product boxes simply by
multiplying the serving size by the number of servings in each box,
information displayed in the nutritional facts section on the back
of each box.'"
It is the fifth lawsuit over alleged slack fill that the company
has faced. Judges in California, New York and Illinois have
rejected them.
Magistrate Kim ruled the San Francisco lawsuit has plausibly
alleged each of its causes of action, including fraud, and that a
reasonable consumer could be deceived by the products' packaging.
"The size of the box suggests something to the average person that
a recitation of numbers (the weight of the food inside) might not
be sufficient to overcome; the common experience of opening up an
expensive box of movie theater candy to reveal a paltry few pieces
inside speaks to that fact," Kim wrote.
Lawyers have 30 days to amend their New Jersey complaint. [GN]
TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION: Bailey Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN BAILEY, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRI-COUNTY CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00312-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C., October 20, 2021) brings
this collective and class action complaint against the Defendant to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a construction
worker from approximately August 2021 to the present.
The Plaintiff claims that although he regularly worked more than 40
hours in a workweek, the Defendant did not properly pay him
overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times hi
regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. For instance, when the Plaintiff worked approximately
55.8 hours, he was not paid an overtime premium for the 14.8 hours
he worked over 40 in that workweek. Instead, he was only paid
straight time wages for all hour he worked, the Plaintiff added.
Tri-County Construction, LLC provides general construction services
within the Western District of North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
CRUMLEY ROBERTS, LLP
2400 Freeman Mill Road, Suite 200
Greensboro, NC 27406
Tel: (336) 333-9899
Fax: (336) 333-9894
E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com
- and –
Philip Bohrer, Esq.
Scott E. Brady, Esq.
BOHRER BRADY, LLC
8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
Tel: (225) 925-5297
Fax: (225) 231-7000
E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
scott@bohrerbrady.com
TURCIOS GROUP: Faces Villa Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
WILSON VILLA, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. TURCIOS GROUP CORP, and HENRY TURCIOS, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-23709 (S.D. Fla., October 20, 2021) brings this
complaint to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempted,
full-time, hourly electrician from approximately June 2013 to
August 16, 2021.
According to the complaint, although the Plaintiff and other
similarly situated electrician regularly worked more than 40 hours
per week as required by the Defendants, the Defendant did not pay
them their lawfully earned overtime compensation at the rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hour worked in
excess of 40 per workweek.
Turcios Group is a commercial electrical contractor, owned and
operated by Henry Turcios. [BN
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Tel: (305) 446-1500
Fax: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
TURNER'S OPERATIONS: Fails to Timely Pay Wages, Sanchez Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KADEN SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. TURNER'S OPERATIONS
INC., a California corporation; TURNER'S OUTDOORS INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 21STCV38742 (Cal. Sup. Ct., October 20, 2021)
brings this complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the California Labor Code.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid and
non-exempt employee from approximately October 11, 2017 through May
19, 2020.
The Plaintiff asserts these claims:
-- The Defendants have failed to provide him and other
similarly situated aggrieved employees with meal periods and with
rest periods, and failed to pay them premium wages for missed meal
and/or rest periods at the regular rate of pay;
-- The Defendants have failed to pay them at least minimum
wage for all hours worked, and overtime wages and/or double time
wages at the legally mandated overtime rate;
-- The Defendants have failed to include all applicable
renumeration in calculating the regular rate of pay, thereby
failing to properly pay them overtime and/or double time wages;
-- The Defendants have failed to reimburse them for all
necessary business expenses;
-- The Defendants have failed to provide them with accurate
written wage statements; and
-- The Defendants have failed to timely pay them all of their
final wages upon separation of employment.
The Plaintiff brings this complaint for himself and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees against the Defendants to recover
civil and statutory penalties, pre-judgment interest, litigation
costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, and other related relief as the
Court deems just and proper.
Turner's Operations Inc. and Turner's Outdoors Inc. provide
sporting goods and equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
William M. Pao, Esq.
Nolan Dilts, Esq.
SETAREH LAW GROUP
9665 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (310) 888-7771
Fax: (310) 888-0109
E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
william@setarehlaw.com
nolan@setarehlaw.com
UNITED STATES: DOT Opposes Class Certif. Bid in Hiring Bias Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Harroff, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Department
of Transportation has slammed a proposed class's certification bid
in a hiring bias suit alleging the Federal Aviation Administration
prioritized African Americans for air traffic control jobs, arguing
the case is being presented as a race issue only because the
plaintiffs know college students are not protected by the Civil
Rights Act in a memorandum in opposition filed in D.C. federal
court on Oct. 26. [GN]
US FOODS: Magana Labor Code Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled IVAN MAGANA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. US FOODS, INC. WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS
IN CALIFORNIA AS US FOODSERVICE, INC., and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV32573, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on
November 4, 2021.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:21-cv-08726 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to provide
required meal periods in violation of the California Labor Code and
unfair business practices in violation of California's Business and
Professions Code.
US Foods, Inc. is an American foodservice distributor,
headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph C. Liburt, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
E-mail: jliburt@orrick.com
- and –
Katie E. Briscoe, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: (916) 447 9200
Facsimile: (916) 329 4900
E-mail: kbriscoe@orrick.com
- and –
Annie H. Chen, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 612-2438
Facsimile: (213) 612-2499
E-mail: annie.chen@orrick.com
VOLTAGE PICTURES: International Lawyers Discuss Court Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Hart, Esq., and Colleen Spring Zimmerman, Esq., of
International Lawyers Network, in article for JD Supra, report that
on September 8, 2021, the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) in Canada
released its decision in Salna v. Voltage Pictures, LLC, 2021 FCA
176 which considered whether a reverse class action, a term used
colloquially to describe where a plaintiff seeks certification of a
respondent/defendant class proceeding, could be pursued in
connection with a copyright infringement claim. Rather than in a
typical class action where the plaintiff is the class, in these
proceedings, the respondents/defendants make up the class. A
reverse class proceeding is a proceeding where a plaintiff or
specific plaintiffs bring a proceeding against a class of
respondents/defendants for common or similar facts.
This decision relates to allegations by various film production
companies that their copyrights in several films had been infringed
online by multiple persons. The various film production companies
(plaintiffs) sought to certify a reverse class in the action
against multiple individuals engaging in illegal uploading and
downloading of their films using peer-to-peer networks.
At the trial level, the Federal Court had previously refused to
certify the plaintiffs' proposed class in this proceeding and found
that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence about the
actual existence of a class of two or more persons as the
respondents/defendants. As such, the plaintiffs' pleadings did not
disclose a reasonable cause of action for such a class action
proceeding. It went on to say that a class proceeding was not the
preferable procedure because the plaintiffs' application
predominantly raised individual issues within the proposed class of
the respondents/defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs' pleadings
did not disclose a reasonable cause of action against multiple
respondents/defendants as a class.
On appeal, the FCA recognized that "the proposed reverse class
action tests the limits of what constitutes copyright infringement.
It is also an innovative development in the means by which authors
attempt to protect their work in a digital environment."[1] The FCA
noted that the novelty of the proposed class action is not a reason
to deny an application to certify the proceeding. Rather, the FCA
stated that
the objectives of class proceedings are well known: (i)
facilitating access to justice through the distribution of legal
fees across a large number of class members, (ii) conserving
judicial resources by reducing unnecessary duplication in the
fact-finding and legal-analysis process, and (iii) modifying
harmful behaviours by ensuring that actual and potential wrongdoers
take into full account the harm they are causing or might cause.
These advantages exist not only in a typical plaintiff class
proceeding, but also in the case of a reverse class proceeding,
where specific plaintiffs bring a proceeding against a class of
defendants".[2]
Notably, the FCA confirmed that a reverse class action may be an
appropriate tool to advance a claim where there are multiple
respondents/defendants that are each potentially liable for small
amounts of money.[3] In determining whether it is appropriate to
certify such an action, the FCA confirmed that "the primary
question to be answered is whether the class proceeding would be a
fair, efficient, and manageable method of advancing the claim."[4]
In this case, the FCA held that the plaintiffs had shown that (i)
they have a novel but arguable claim, with pleadings that disclose
a reasonable cause of action for direct copyright infringement,
(ii) there is some basis in fact that there is a class of two or
more persons (the respondents/defendants) and (iii) there are
common issues of fact and law. But, the FCA held that it could not
decide whether this proceeding as a class action is the preferable
procedure for the just and efficient resolution of the claims
before it. Consequently, the FCA set aside the Federal Court's
decision to refuse to certify the class of respondents/defendants
and ordered the certification motion to be returned to the Federal
Court for consideration in light of the FCA's reasons.
In its reasons, the FCA indicated that a reverse class action for
copyright infringement can be appropriately advanced by the
plaintiff litigant. The FCA confirmed that in reserve class action
proceedings:
1. sub-classes of the class/defendants can be created to address
any differences in fact scenarios;[5]
2. a court-supervised individual assessment process can be
instituted to deal with the apportioning of damages amongst class
members[6];
3. if the individual circumstances of various class members become
determinative of liability on a case-by-case basis, then those
individual, or smaller group, questions can be appropriately
handled by the court[7]; and
4. a common resolution or framework for resolution, applicable to
even some of the common questions of fact and law in a class
proceeding, will save judicial resources and reduce inconsistencies
that can arise should similar, individual actions come before the
courts.[8]
The FCA's decision provides helpful insight on the use of a reverse
class action as an appropriate tool for plaintiffs seeking to
resolve one or more claims, including copyright infringement
claims, involving numerous respondents/defendants each potentially
liable for small amounts of money.
It will be interesting to see how this case moves along and whether
the reverse class action proceeding is in fact beneficial to the
plaintiffs in stopping copyright infringement and obtaining relief
from the Court including injunctions and damages. [GN]
[*] New Zealand Class Actions, Litigation Funding Continue to Grow
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hesketh Henry, in an article for Lexology, reports that class
actions and litigation funding continue to grow in prominence in
New Zealand, despite the lack of a regulatory framework for the
same.
Currently claims that would be brought as a class action in other
jurisdictions are brought as representative actions under HCR 4.24.
This rule allows a claim to be brought "on behalf of, or for the
benefit of, all persons with the same interest in the subject
matter of a proceeding". While this may be a class action by
another name, unlike their overseas counterparts, the New Zealand
rules do not spell out any framework for how such actions are to be
conducted. Similarly, there is no specific litigation funding
regime in New Zealand. Generally, the funder agrees to pay
litigation costs in return for a share in the sum of money
recovered.
This article discusses the current status of the Te Aka Matua o te
Ture | Law Commission's review in this area, as well as recent
class action litigation - in particular, the proceedings involving
James Hardie and its Harditex cladding product.
Law Commission review
The lack of a regulatory framework for class actions and litigation
funding is something the Law Commission is currently investigating.
The Commission's preliminary view, as per their issues paper
released in December 2020, was that class actions and litigation
funding improve access to justice and are, in principle,
beneficial, and that a legislative regime for the was desirable.
However the Commission sought feedback on whether the potential
benefits of class actions and litigation funding can be realised in
a way that outweighs risks and concerns, including increased court
workloads, negative impacts for defendants in terms of the cost of
defending the actions insufficient protection of class members'
interests, potential conflicts of interest between funders and
class members, and the capital adequacy of funders.
In late September 2021 the Law Commission released a supplementary
issues paper, which reported that feedback from submitters was
overwhelmingly in favour of New Zealand adopting a statutory class
actions regime, confirming the Commission's view that such a regime
is desirable. This supplementary paper seeks feedback on detailed
aspects of what such a regime would look like, including draft
legislative provisions prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel
Office. Some of the key proposals made by the Commission include
the following:
A class actions regime should have a certification stage (which is
part of most overseas regimes, with a notable exception being
Australia) - the draft legislation requires that class members
claims "all raise a common issue of fact or law of significance to
the resolution of each claim", and sets out a number of factors for
a court to consider when assessing whether a class action is
appropriate.
There should be a wide definition of competing class actions, in
order to minimise the burden on the courts and confusion for class
members. In addition, any competing class actions should be filed
within 90 days of the first class action being commenced, to enable
a court to consider the same at the certification stage.
Settlement of class action proceedings must be approved by a court
- the draft legislation sets out factors for a court to take into
account when determining whether the settlement is "fair,
reasonable, and in the interests of the class as a whole".
Submissions on the supplementary issues paper close on 12 November
2021 and the Law Commission intends to release a final report on
class actions and litigation funding in the first half of 2022.
Class action litigation
In the interim, the Courts have found themselves grappling with how
to regulate class action litigation. One example of this is that in
late 2020 the Supreme Court confirmed that class actions can
proceed on an opt out basis in New Zealand, meaning anyone falling
within the defined class will be represented unless they actively
exclude themselves. Accordingly, we can expect that class action
proceedings will involve larger classes going forward, resulting in
increased quantum amounts and, in turn, incentivising class action
litigation and litigation funding in New Zealand.
Following on from the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court in
the same proceeding has recently issued a judgment setting out the
Court's requirements for the notice that the plaintiffs must
provide to all class members about their rights to opt out, in
relation to matters of form, content, timing and distribution.
Although specific to the particular proceedings, this judgment
provides useful guidance on what such notices should look like.
(Three other judgments in this proceeding were released by the High
Court on the same day, and included decisions on how the defendant
could communicate with class members with regard to settlement).
The Courts have also substantively heard various matters involving
class actions. Earlier this year the Supreme Court dismissed an
application for leave to appeal in the Feltex class action, which
effectively brought an end to proceedings filed in 2008 on behalf
of more than 3,600 shareholders who were seeking compensation from
the directors of the collapsed carpet company.
More recently, we have seen two unsuccessful class actions taken
against James Hardie in the Wellington and Auckland High Courts,
which are known as the Cridge litigation and White litigation
respectively. The claims made were in respect of the Harditex sheet
cladding material that was produced and marketed by James Hardie.
The claimants in these matters alleged that the composition of the
Harditex cladding was inherently flawed, the system of installation
was too difficult for builders to get right, and the information
provided by James Hardie to assist with using its product was
misleading and inadequate.
The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim in the Cridge
litigation, holding that Harditex was fit for purpose, and could be
installed safely by a reasonable, competent builder. The Court
considered that fundamental building errors and non-compliance with
James Hardie's instructions were the most likely cause of
weathertightness problems. In coming to this conclusion, Justice
France was highly critical of the homeowners' expert evidence.
Justice France did hold that it was "reasonably plain that a duty
of care is owed by James Hardie, the manufacturer of Harditex, to
the plaintiffs being the owners of houses clad in Harditex", making
the following two points:
* The decision of the Supreme Court in Carter Holt Harvey, which
the Court considered to be very similar to the present case, held
that there are no conceptual obstacles to such a duty.
* There was nothing in the evidence submitted by James Hardie to
distinguish it from Carter Holt Harvey (with Justice France
commenting that "If anything, one would consider the purchasers of
residential homes more vulnerable than a large state entity such as
the Ministry of Education").
The finding of Justice France that the manufacturer of Harditex
owed a duty of care to the homeowners aligns with amendments
recently made to the Building Act 2004, which strengthen disclosure
obligations on building product manufacturers to allow better
informed decision making and provide greater confidence in the
industry.
However, the failure of the homeowners to establish any defect with
the product, or any breach of the duty owed, meant the homeowners'
claims in negligence was unsuccessful.
Shortly before the judgment in the Cridge litigation was released,
the White litigation was settled, part way through its own High
Court hearing. The settlement provided that James Hardie would make
no admission of liability and Harbour Litigation Funding (Harbour),
who were funding the homeowners' claim, would pay James Hardie
$1.25 million. The homeowners did not receive any compensation from
the settlement agreement.
The case was settled as Harbour was unwilling to continue funding
the proceeding - presumably on the basis that the litigation funder
no longer had confidence the homeowners' claim would be successful.
A similar outcome occurred in a leaky home class action case
against Carter Holt Harvey in respect of its Shadowclad product.
Harbour was also the litigation funder in those proceedings, and
earlier this year pulled its funding - reportedly having to pay
more than a half a million dollars in security for costs.
There were a number of press reports that indicate the claimants in
the White litigation had very reluctantly approved the settlement
on the basis that they could not afford to take the case on
themselves. This highlights one of the key issues the Law
Commission has identified with litigation funding - the litigation
funder has an overriding ability to withdraw from funding at any
point, leaving the funded party in a position where it is unlikely
they will be able to continue the claim. To manage funder control,
the Law Commission has suggested that litigation funders could be
required to include minimum terms in their funding agreements.
Examples of minimum terms include those that set out the funder's
role in decisions about whether to settle proceedings and the
circumstances in which the funder may terminate their funding.
We note that a third class action involving James Hardie and the
Harditex cladding product (known as the Waitakere litigation) is
set to be heard in 2023 (and no doubt the litigation funder will
closely examine Justice France's decision ahead of the hearing).
And it's not all bad news for class action participants, with the
Crown paying $40 million to settle a $450 million claim brought by
200 kiwifruit growers following the incursion of the kiwifruit vine
disease Psa in the Bay of Plenty region from 2010. The settlement
was reached days before the Supreme Court was due to hear an appeal
brought by the claimants, following a decision by the Court of
Appeal that the Government could not be held liable for the damage
caused by Psa.
Comment
Access to justice is a key concern for the justice system. Often
the cost of litigation makes it too expensive for many to have
their day in court. Class actions and litigation funding address
this concern and are therefore here to stay. To provide certainty
for these regimes it is likely we will see a regulatory response,
which will provide parties with a clear framework of how these
actions will proceed and place checks and balances on the process.
However, reform of this area is not going to happen quickly and, in
the interim, the Courts will continue to have a guiding role in how
such litigation is to be regulated. [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***