/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/220812.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 12, 2022, Vol. 24, No. 155
Headlines
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Sparks Suit Claims
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Glover Says
3M COMPANY: Allee Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Lutz Alleges
3M COMPANY: Faces Keffer Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
3M COMPANY: Faces Pieper Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
3M COMPANY: Irelan Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: McLeish Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Pickett Suit Claims Harmful Effects From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Vlosich Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
AKAZOO SA: $1.47MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28
ALLIANCE ROOFING: Faces Hathaway Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
ALTICE USA: Hit With $20-M Class Suit for Reneging on KAC Pledge
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to Respond to Complaint
APPLE INC: Case Management Order Entered in Barrett Class Suit
AT&T MOBILITY: Customers May Get $20 in Surcharge Class Settlement
ATZA GOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boettcher Suit Alleges
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Denial of Intervention in Callahan Deal Affirmed
CARLYLE GROUP: City of Pittsburgh Sues Over Unfair TRA Buyout
CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in MacClelland
CISION US: $325K Class Settlement in Mikityuk Suit Wins Approval
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Cody Alleges Illegal Wiretapping to Website
CORECIVIC INC: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by August 12
CURO GROUP: Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Properties Seeks Leave to File SAC
DAKOTA PLAINS: $13.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 4
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Court Tosses Gile Bid for Class Certification
ECL GROUP: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info, Byers Suit Says
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Suit
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Robbins Geller Notes of Sept. 26 Deadline
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Garthwait Suit
FORD MOTOR: Imhoff Sues Over Defective Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
GEO GROUP: Gomez Sues Over Detained Immigrants' Forced Labor
GILEAD SCIENCES: Parties Stipulate to Seal Class Cert. Bid
GKN DRIVELINE: Bid to Amend Certified Class Granted in Part
GODADDY.COM LLC: 11th Circuit Vacates TPCA Class Settlement
GOODYEAR TIRE: Illegally Wiretaps Website, Byars Suit Alleges
GRAND CANYON: Bid for Consolidation Tossed in Little Class Suit
HANNAFORD BROS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
HENRY SCHEIN: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 25
HOME DEPOT: Barely Dodges TPCA Class Action Suit in Georgia
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Child Labor Claims
IC SYSTEM: Weber Seeks to Certify Class in FDCPA Suit
IOWA BARNSTORMERS: $1-Mil. Settlement Reached in Sex Abuse Suit
J.B. HUNT: Taylor FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
KENDO HOLDINGS: Saintigene TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
KNAUF GIPS: Appleby Class Suit Moved From E.D. La. to S.D. Fla.
KSF ACQUISITION: Cintron Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products
LYTE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Silva Alleges
MB COATINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrada Suit Alleges
MERCEDES-BENZ: Hamm Seeks Leave to File Bid for Reconsideration
MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Bid for Evidentiary Hearing Tossed
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Beldock Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Algranati FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
MINNESOTA DHS: Class Action Suit Over Disability Rights Settled
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Seeks Leave to Submit Limited Briefing
MYLAN INC: Summary Judgment in Suit Over EpiPen Monopoly Affirmed
NEW AMERICAN: Martin Files Copyright Infringement Suit
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Goe v. Department of Health
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Settles Suit Over Vaccine Mandate for $10M
PARKASH 1630: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Securities Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to D. Mass.
PETER BARCA: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Vargo
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Suit Over Chicken Tenders' False Ads
PURFOODS LLC: Martinez FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
RAYMOND JAMES: Nguyen Loses Class Status Bid
RED BEACON: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Carson Suit Alleges
REILLY FOAM: Faces Carreon Suit Over Biometric Data Collection
SNAP INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Corporate Fiduciary Duties
TEVA PHARMA: Proceedings in Halman Suit Stayed
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notifies Investors of Securities Suit
TIKTOK INC: $92-Mil. Privacy Class Settlement Granted Approval
TIM HORTONS: Offers Coffee and Doughnut as Proposed Settlement
TORONTO-DOMINION: $31.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 21
TRADE DESK: Delaware Court Tosses Pension Fund Suit With Prejudice
TRANSUNION LLC: Class-Action Settlement Approved in Ramirez Case
TRICIDA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pardi Securities Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Court Halts Vaccine Mandate vs. Religious Objectors
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Quinto Suit Removed to N.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Suit Removed to Federal Court
WALGREEN CO: $105MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 7
WEBER INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
WEST VIRGINIA: Fain Wins Bid for Class Certification
ZIONS BANCORP: Class Settlement in Evans Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co Defends Against 4,131 Claimants at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $310MM Reserves at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Product Liability Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $10.6MM Asbestos Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Has $485MM Net A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Defends Personal Injury Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corporation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,501 Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 4,660 Claims as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $22MM Estimated Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp Has 425 Pending Cases as of June 30
*********
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Can Cause Cancer, Sparks Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
DALE SPARKS, 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. 2:22-cv-02509-RMG
(D.S.C., July 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Exposed Firefighters to PFAS, Glover Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RONALD GLOVER, 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. 2:22-cv-02499-RMG
(D.S.C., July 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with kidney cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Allee Suit Alleges Complications From AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
LUCILLE ALLEE, 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. 2:22-cv-02506-RMG
(D.S.C., July 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with lymphoma cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Lutz Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED LUTZ, 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. 2:22-cv-02502-RMG
(D.S.C., July 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Keffer Suit Over AFFF Products' Harmful Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD KEFFER, 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. 2:22-cv-02500-RMG
(D.S.C., July 30, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit
alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Faces Pieper Suit Over AFFF Products' Design Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN PIEPER, 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. 2:22-cv-02495-RMG
(D.S.C., July 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Irelan Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
TERRANCE IRELAN, 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. 2:22-cv-02505-RMG
(D.S.C., July 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with leukemia cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: McLeish Suit Claims Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN MCLEISH, 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. 2:22-cv-02498-RMG
(D.S.C., July 29, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, alleges the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
3M COMPANY: Pickett Suit Claims Harmful Effects From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT PICKETT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY fka MINNESOTA MINING &
MANUFACTURING CO.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT CO.; CHEMGUARD, INC.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I.
DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO.; KIDDE-FENWALL, INC; KIDDE FIRE FIGHTING,
INC; KIDDE PLC INC.; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS CO.; THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; UTC FIRE &
SECURITY AMERICA'S, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02468-RMG (D.S.C., July 29, 2022) is a class
action against the Defendants for negligence, strict liability,
defective design, failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, medical
monitoring trust, and violations of the Uniform Voidable
Transactions Act and California's Unfair Competition Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and military members, including the Plaintiff, who they
knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products.
The Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendants' omissions and misconduct, the
Plaintiff was diagnosed testicular cancer and commenced on-going
medical treatment inclusive of a right orchiectomy, the suit
further alleges.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
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-Fenwall, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde Fire Fighting, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire safety products
based in Mebane, North Carolina.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
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.
The Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
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.
UTC Fire & Security America's Inc. is a manufacturer of security
and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeremy C. Shafer, Esq.
VETERAN LEGAL GROUP
700 12th Street N.W., Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (888) 215-7834
E-mail: jshafer@bannerlegal.com
- and –
S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES
120 Fairmount Street
Lowell, MA, 01852
Telephone: (978) 458-0507
E-mail: sjboumil@boumil-law.com
- and –
Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
KYROS LAW
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043
Telephone: (800) 934-2921
E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com
3M COMPANY: Vlosich Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH VLOSICH, 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. 2:22-cv-02503-RMG
(D.S.C., July 31, 2022) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.
The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and civilian
firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of
and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to
toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, says the
suit.
3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.
ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.
Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.
Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.
Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.
Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.
Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.
Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.
Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.
Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.
Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.
Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.
E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.
Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.
Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.
National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.
The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.
Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.
United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.
UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard Zgoda, Jr., Esq.
Steven D. Gacovino, Esq.
GACOVINO, LAKE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
270 West Main Street
Sayville, NY 11782
Telephone: (631) 600-0000
Facsimile: (631) 543-5450
- and –
Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
2160 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 328-9200
Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
AKAZOO SA: $1.47MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announce
that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities
of Akazoo S.A (NASDAQ: SONG):
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND
PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF SECURITIES CLASS ACTION
TO: All persons and entities who or which: (1) purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Akazoo S.A.
("Akazoo") between January 24, 2019 and May 21, 2020, both dates
inclusive, including but not limited to, those who purchased or
acquired Akazoo securities pursuant to the private placement
offering agreement, and were damaged thereby; (2) held common stock
of Modern Media Acquisition Corp. ("MMAC") as of August 9, 2019,
eligible to vote at MMAC's August 28, 2019 special meeting, and
were damaged thereby; and/or (3) purchased or otherwise acquired
Akazoo common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's
registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the
September 2019 merger of MMAC and Akazoo Limited, and were damaged
thereby (the "Settlement Class").
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY A COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
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 Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a
class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain
persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by
definition as set forth in the full Notice of Pendency and Proposed
Partial Settlement of Class Action (the "Long Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Plaintiffs in the Action, have reached a
proposed partial settlement of the Action, which will yield
settlement funds of $1,470,000 (the "Crowe Settlement"). If the
Crowe Settlement is approved, it will resolve all claims in the
Action with respect to the Settling Defendant, Crowe U.K. LLP.
A hearing will be held on September 28, 2022 at 5:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Brian M. Cogan at the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East,
Courtroom 8D, Brooklyn, NY 11201, to determine: (i) whether the
proposed Crowe Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Settling Defendant, and the Releases specified
and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Partial
Settlement dated July 20, 2022 ("Stipulation") and in the Long
Notice should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the
Settlement Fund. The Long Notice and Proof of Claim and Release
Form ("Claim Form"), as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which,
among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used
in this Summary Notice), can be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator, Strategic Claims Services,
www.strategicclaims.net/akazoo/. You may also obtain copies of the
Long Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator
at Akazoo S.A. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, Media, PA
19063, Tel: (866) 274-4004; Fax: (610) 565-7985; Email:
info@strategicclaims.net.
If you previously submitted a valid and timely Claim Form in the
Akazoo Settlement, you do not need to do so again. Your prior valid
and timely Claim Form will be used for the Crowe Settlement. If you
are a member of the Settlement Class, have not already submitted a
valid and timely Claim Form as part of the Akazoo Settlement, and
wish to share in this Crowe Settlement's proceeds, you must submit
a Claim Form postmarked or electronically submitted no later than
October 7, 2022 to the Claims Administrator. If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you
will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than September 7, 2022
to the Claims Administrator, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Long Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from
the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Crowe Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Crowe Settlement, the proposed Plan
of Allocation, or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Class Counsel and Crowe's Counsel such that they
are received no later than September 7, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Long Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Crowe U.K.
LLP, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this
notice, the proposed Crowe Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Crowe Settlement should be directed to Class
Counsel or the Claims Administrator.
Requests for the Long Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
Akazoo S.A. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205
Media, PA 19063
Tel: 866-274-4004
www.strategicclaims.net/akazoo/
Inquiries, other than requests for the Long Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Class Counsel:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
Casey Sadler, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: (888) 773-9224
By Order of the Court
ALLIANCE ROOFING: Faces Hathaway Wage-and-Hour Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHAD HATHAWAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ALLIANCE ROOFING COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 22CV401365 (Cal. Super.,
Santa Clara Cty., July 29, 2022) is a class action against the
Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code and the
California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay
minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide
meal periods, failure to permit rest breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to pay all wages due upon separation of
employment, and unfair business practices.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt
employee.
Alliance Roofing Company, Inc. is a roofing contractor in Santa
Clara, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
Kashif Haque, Esq.
Fawn F. Bekam, Esq.
AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: (949) 379-6250
Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
ALTICE USA: Hit With $20-M Class Suit for Reneging on KAC Pledge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Hardesty, writing for Fierce Telecom, reports that the owner
of a New York City barber shop has filed a $20 million class-action
lawsuit against Altice, claiming that Altice reneged on its Keep
Americans Connected pledge, which it signed in the early days of
the pandemic.
Artem Shalomayev, owner of 3715 Barber Shop in the Bronx, is suing
on behalf of potentially thousands of other similarly-situated
small business owners, according to Jon Norinsberg, the lawyer for
the plaintiff.
Shalomayev, like many others, was forced to shut his doors from
mid-March to mid-June in 2020 to comply with shelter-in-place
orders due to the Covid pandemic.
On March 13, 2020, then-FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the Keep
Americans Connected initiative, asking broadband providers to
pledge not to terminate service to any residential or small
business customers because of their inability to pay their bills
and to waive any late fees.
More than 800 companies, including Altice, signed the chairman's
pledge.
At the time, Altice USA's CEO Dexter Goei said, "Altice USA is
proud to do its part in ensuring that customers and business in our
service areas have reliable access to the connectivity services
that are critically important during this rapidly evolving public
health situation."
Shalomayev said he was sent three Altice invoices from March to
June 2020, charging for internet and phone services even though his
business was mandatorily closed. His suit says that Altice then
terminated his services based on non-payment in late June 2020,
which he views as going against the pledge.
According to his complaint, Shalomayev asked an Altice customer
service representative if he could pay the bills in order to get
his service restored, and the representative said that his service
was permanently disconnected, that he would have to set up a new
account and pay a $180.00 reconnection fee. If he didn't comply as
the customer service rep demanded, he would lose the telephone
number associated with his business, which was a hardship since
many of his customers were familiar with that number for decades.
Shalomayev paid the overdue bills along with the reconnection fee
and a late-fee that Altice imposed, as well.
When he finally was allowed to reopen his business in August, 2020,
Shalomayev received his first new monthly Altice bill and claims
that Altice had doubled his monthly fees for internet and phone
services.
Norinsberg told Fierce that Shalomayev is not complaining that he
had to pay for his telecom services from March through June.
Rather, the lawsuit is narrowly focused on the issue of being
forced to enter a new contract with a new reconnection fee when
services shouldn't have been terminated in the first place.
"The lawsuit is simply about terminating service based on
non-payment and forcing people to pay new fees to reinstall the
service," said Norinsberg. "We think Altice was trying to pull a
fast-one, trying to recoup some revenue losses due to the
pandemic."
Mike Saperstein, Vice President of strategic initiatives &
partnerships at USTelecom – The Broadband Association, said, "The
KAC pledge started on 3/13/20 and was originally for 60 days. The
pledge was then extended to run through June 30, 2020. The pledge
was not to terminate service to residences and small businesses
during the period for non-payment, as well as to waive associated
late fees. The pledge was not to provide free service during that
period, but instead offered to relieve the pressures of termination
and late fees due to inability to pay at that point."
Although Shalomayev is the only plaintiff at this time, Norinsberg
said his law firm is estimating a 50,000-member class with similar
damages. That will all be determined during the discovery process
of the lawsuit. "We think it extraordinarily unlikely this was an
isolated incident," he said. "We've had many class actions."
Altice
Altice sent the following comment to Fierce: "Throughout the
pandemic, Altice USA has been committed to providing support and
relief to our customers, including providing free broadband
services to students, suspending disconnections for households and
businesses during the height of the pandemic as part of the Keep
Americans Connected Pledge, and establishing a $10 million
Community Relief Program that included among other activities $3
million in small business grants and $5 million in ad credits to
help businesses impacted by the pandemic recover."
The company has previously made some comments about the effect of
the pandemic on its subscriber base.
In its fourth quarter 2020 earnings call in February 2021, Goei
said the company saw a net customer loss of 15,000 residential
customers, which included customers associated with the Keep
Americans Connected Pledge as well as a similar New Jersey
Executive Order, according to a Seeking Alpha transcript.
Goei said at the time, "All of those customers have been brought
current in the fourth quarter through a combination of balance
forgiveness, payment plans or cash payments. So far, we are seeing
positive trends -- payment trends in that cohort in early 2021.
Recall that the Pledge -- the FCC Pledge ended in June."
On its most recent earnings call in July 2021, Altice reported a
jump in churn that left it with almost no gains in the quarter.
Broadband subscriber growth was flat in the quarter, with the
company adding just 200 organic net customer additions compared to
70,400 in Q2 2020. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Parties Seek More Time to Respond to Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, SCOTT
GRAEBER, LAURA LOES, LETICIA SHAW, and DAVID ATWOOD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.,
a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.),
the Parties stipulate and agree as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on July 13, 2022, and
served Amazon.com, Inc. with the Summons and Complaint on
July 18, 2022.
2. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i), Amazon’s deadline to
respond to the complaint is August 8, 2022, absent an
extension of time.
3. Amazon has asked Plaintiffs' counsel for additional time
to respond to the Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ counsel have
agreed. The Plaintiffs and Amazon therefore stipulate and
agree to extend Amazon’s deadline to answer or otherwise
respond to the Complaint until September 30, 2022.
4. In the event Amazon elects to file a motion to dismiss or
similar motion rather than an answer, Plaintiffs and
Amazon have agreed to a briefing schedule on that motion
as follows:
Motion due: September 30, 2022
Opposition due: November 14, 2022
Reply due: December 14, 2022
5. The Plaintiffs and Amazon jointly request that the Court
defer the presumptive deadline for class certification,
set by Local Rule 23(i)(3), which currently requires
Plaintiffs to move for class certification by January 9,
2023.
Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company
which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, digital streaming,
and artificial intelligence.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BU2OIC at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
barbaram@hbsslaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen M. Rummage, Esq.
MaryAnn Almeida, Esq.
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
Facsimile: (206) 757-7700
E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com
MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com
APPLE INC: Case Management Order Entered in Barrett Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARL BARRETT, et al., v.
APPLE INC., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Edward J. Davila entered a case management order as
follows:
-- Fact Discovery Cutoff: February 24, 2023
-- Joint Trial Setting Conference April 10, 2023
Statement:
-- Trial Setting Conference: April 20, 2023
-- Motion for Class Certification May 25, 2023
and Accompanying Expert
Disclosures:
-- Deadline for Filing Opposition August 4, 2023
to Motion for Class
Certification and Accompanying
Rebuttal Expert Disclosures:
-- Deadline for Filing Reply in October 5, 2023
Support of Motion for Class
Certification:
-- Hearing on Anticipated Motion October 19, 2023
for Class Certification:
Apple is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in consumer electronics, software and online services
headquartered in Cupertino, California, United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SA9Mbz at no extra charge.[CC]
AT&T MOBILITY: Customers May Get $20 in Surcharge Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Keys of The Desk reports that certain AT&T wireless
customers who live in California could be entitled to a $20 payment
or bill credit as part of a class action settlement.
The federal case involves several AT&T customers who sued the
company over a little-known surcharge called an Administrative Fee.
The plaintiffs in the case allege AT&T charged the fee without
fully disclosing it.
AT&T denies any wrongdoing. Still, a proposed settlement has been
reached in the case that could earn eligible wireless customers a
payment or bill credit from a $14 million pool of funds earmarked
to resolve the issue.
Eligible customers must be in California with AT&T postpaid
wireless service between June 20, 2015 and June 16, 2022. Some
eligible customers began receiving notifications by e-mail or
postal mail this week based on records obtained by the plaintiffs
in the case, but anyone with a post-paid wireless account through
AT&T is able to fill out a claim form and submit it for payment.
Customers with an active AT&T wireless account will receive a
credit on their wireless bill, while former AT&T customers will
receive a check in the mail. A legal notice said the final payment
is expected to be around $20, though it could be higher or lower
depending on how many valid claims are submitted.
The award is not automatic: Current and former AT&T wireless
customers with an eligible post-paid account must file a claim by
clicking or tapping here before October 29, 2022 to receive a bill
credit or check. Eligible customers who do not file a claim will
not receive the bill credit or payment, and they give up their
right to sue AT&T about this specific issue in the future.
The plaintiffs in the case will each receive around $3,500, while
the attorneys representing the plaintiffs are expected to be
reimbursed $3.5 million in expenses and fees. The settlement is
expected to be finalized during a court hearing in November.
The case is Vianu v. AT&T Mobility LLC, case no. 3:19-cv-03602-LB,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. [GN]
ATZA GOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Boettcher Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
MARY BOETTCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ATZA GOOD PIZZA, LLC; and KENNETH L. WHITE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-01349 (N.D. Ohio., Aug. 1, 2022) is an
action alleging the Defendants willful failure to compensate the
Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with minimum and
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Boettcher was employed by the Defendants as delivery
driver.
ATZA GOOD PIZZA, LLC owns and operates a Marco's Pizza store
located at Brunswick, Ohio. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James L. Simon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SIMON & SIMON
5000 Rockside Road
Liberty Plaza - Suite 520
Independence, OH 44131
Telephone: (216) 525-8890
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
- and -
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. FRADIN
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Telephone: (847) 644-3425
Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Denial of Intervention in Callahan Deal Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the cases, CAROLYN D. CALLAHAN, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v. BROOKDALE SENIOR
LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE
SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware corporation; SUMMERVILLE AT
ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; EMERITUS CORPORATION, a Washington corporation;
BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware corporation; DOES, 1
through 100, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees v. MISHELLE NEVERSON,
Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant. CAROLYN CALLAHAN, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
BROOKDALE EMPLOYEE SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE
EMPLOYEE SERVICES CORPORATE, LLC, a Delaware corporation;
SUMMERVILLE AT ATHERTON COURT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; BKD PERSONAL ASSISTANCE SERVICES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; EMERITUS CORPORATION, a
Washington corporation; BROOKDALE LIVING COMMUNITIES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; BKD TWENTY-ONE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., a
Delaware corporation; BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DOES, 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants-Appellees
v. MISHELLE NEVERSON, Proposed Intervenor, Movant-Appellant, and
NINA REJUSO, Proposed Intervenor; GENEFLOR SACRO, Proposed
Intervenor, Movants, Case Nos. 20-55603, 20-55761 (9th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the district
court's denial of Proposed Intervenor Mishelle Neverson's motion to
intervene.
Ms. Callahan is a plaintiff in an action brought against Brookdale,
her former employer, pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, Cal. Lab. Code sections 2698-2699.5, which allows
aggrieved employees to recover civil penalties for Labor Code
violations on behalf of themselves, the state, or other current or
former employees. After mediation, Callahan and Brookdale agreed to
a settlement. Appellant everson, who was a plaintiff in an
overlapping PAGA case against Brookdale, filed a motion to
intervene in Callahan's action. The district court denied
Neverson's motion and approved the PAGA settlement in Callahan's
case in relevant part. Neverson appeals both the denial of her
motion to intervene and the district court's order approving the
Callahan settlement. The Ninth Circuit consolidated these two
issues on appeal.
Brookdale owns and operates senior living communities throughout
the United States. Callahan worked for Brookdale as a concierge
from approximately February 2006 to February 2018. On Nov. 26,
2018, she sent the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency
notice of a number of Brookdale's alleged violations of the
California Labor Code. On Nov. 27, 2018, Callahan filed a class
action lawsuit against Brookdale in the Los Angeles County Superior
Court. The complaint alleged violations of the Labor Code and
California's Unfair Competition Law. She did not initially bring a
claim under PAGA.
On Oct. 21, 2019, Callahan and Brookdale filed a Joint Notice of
Settlement advising the district court they had settled the case as
to all parties and causes of action. Three days later, Neverson
filed a notice of intent to intervene to object to the PAGA
settlement.
On Feb. 13, 2020, Callahan filed a second amended complaint, which
sought PAGA penalties based on predicate violations of Labor Code
sections 201, 202, 203, 203.1, 222.5, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558,
1174, 1194, 1194.2, 2802, 2810.5 and Wage Order No. 4-2001. The
second amended complaint also added all the named Defendants from
the Related Actions.
On March 4, 2020, Callahan and Brookdale filed a joint motion for
approval of the PAGA settlement. Their proposed settlement was
based on a Gross Settlement Fund of $920,000. The funds were
allocated as follows: $417,240.72 to the LWDA, $139,080.24 to the
aggrieved employees, $46,000 in administration costs, $306,666.67
in attorneys' fees, $8,512.36 in litigation costs and expenses, and
$2,500 as a service award for Callahan as the named plaintiff.
On March 13, 2020, Neverson filed her motion to intervene. On May
20, 2020, the district court denied her motion. The district court
denied Neverson's intervention as a matter of right under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) because she had "not cited, and the
Court ha[d] not found, any cases in which a court has granted
intervention as of right in a PAGA settlement." In considering
whether to grant permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b),
the court found (1) that it had jurisdiction to permit
intervention, (2) that Neverson's motion to intervene was timely,
and (3) that there were common questions of law and fact between
Neverson's and Callahan's claims. But it ultimately denied
permissive intervention because Neverson and Callahan represented
the same legal interest and because "permitting intervention would
not contribute to the factual development of issues."
On July 7, 2020, the district court entered an order granting in
part the joint motion for approval of the PAGA settlement. The
court approved the settlement amount, but reduced the amount
allocated for attorneys' fees from $306,666.67 to $230,000.
Ms. Neverson timely appealed both the order denying her motion to
intervene and the district court's order approving the PAGA
settlement. The Ninth Circuit consolidated her two appeals on Sept.
4, 2020.
Ms. Neverson raises three arguments on appeal: (1) that she is
entitled to intervene in Callahan's PAGA action as a matter of
right; (2) that the district court abused its discretion in denying
her permissive intervention; and (3) that the district court abused
its discretion in finding that the PAGA settlement is fundamentally
fair, adequate, and reasonable.
The Ninth Circuit first considers whether Neverson was entitled to
intervene in Callahan's case as a matter of right pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). It concludes that
Neverson has failed to make the required showing that Callahan did
not adequately represent her interests. It finds that (1)
Neverson's assertion that she would not have agreed to the
settlement is insufficient to show that Callahan did not adequately
represent her interests; (2) it is not persuaded by Neverson's
assertion that the absence of formal litigation in Callahan's case
left Callahan unable to adequately represent Neverson's interests;
(3) Neverson does not establish that she is the proper party to
pursue the claims for which Callahan was not properly deputized;
and (4) whether Callahan was properly deputized to pursue certain
claims she settled on behalf of the state is not relevant to
whether Callahan adequately represented Neverson's interests based
on the three relevant factors. The Ninth Circuit therefore affirms
the district court's denial of her motion to intervene as of
right.
The Ninth Circuit next considers whether the district court abused
its discretion in denying Neverson permissive intervention.
Neverson first argues that the fact that she and Callahan both
represent the interests of the LWDA cannot be dispositive and
should not have been considered in the district court's analysis of
the Spangler discretionary factors. She also argues that she should
be granted permissive intervention because her independent analysis
of the value of the PAGA claims would significantly contribute to
the factual development of Callahan's case.
The Ninth Circuit concludes that the district court acted within
its discretion in denying Neverson permissive intervention.
Contrary to Neverson's assertions, it does not follow from the
district court's decision that a PAGA plaintiff can never be
granted permissive intervention in an overlapping PAGA case.
Neverson also provides no factual basis for her determination that
Callahan miscalculated the maximum PAGA penalties. Under these
circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
finding that Neverson would not significantly contribute to the
factual issues in the case. The Ninth Circuit accordingly affirms
the denial of Neverson's motion to intervene.
The well-settled rule in federal court, is that "only parties to a
lawsuit, or those that properly become parties, may appeal an
adverse judgment." Though the Ninth Circuit has occasionally
allowed a non-party to appeal when "'exceptional circumstances'
warrant a departure from this general rule," Neverson does not
argue that such circumstances are present. Because Neverson's
motion to intervene was properly denied, she never became a party
to the PAGA action. And as a non-party to this action, she has no
right to appeal the district court's approval of the PAGA
settlement. Neverson argues that she has a right to appeal the
settlement because "the weight of California authority supports
non-parties having a substantive right to intervene in overlapping
PAGA suits."
Because Neverson lacks the right to appeal the PAGA settlement, the
Ninth Circuit dismisses her appeal of the settlement approval and
does not consider whether the district court abused its discretion
in approving the settlement.
For the foregoing reasons, as to the first appeal, the Ninth
Circuit affirms the district court's denial of Neverson's motion to
intervene. It dismisses Neverson's second appeal of the district
court's approval of the PAGA settlement because it concludes that
she has no right to appeal.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Order & Amended
Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/35pmhk6h from
Leagle.com.
Ryan H. Wu -- Ryan.Wu@CapstoneLawyers.com -- (argued) and Robert K.
Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, in
Los Angeles, California, for the Movant-Appellant.
Joseph Socher -- jss@socherlaw.com -- (argued), Los Angeles,
California; Andranik Tsarukyan -- andy@remedylawgroup.com -- and
Armen Zenjiryan -- armen@remedylawgroup.com -- Remedy Law Group
LLP, Burbank, California, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Keith A. Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- (argued), J. Kevin
Lilly, Shannon R. Boyce -- sboyce@littler.com -- and Jeffrey J.
Mann -- jeffrey.mann@ehealth.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C., in Los
Angeles, California, for the Defendants-Appellees.
CARLYLE GROUP: City of Pittsburgh Sues Over Unfair TRA Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF PITTSBURGH COMPREHENSIVE MUNICIPAL PENSION TRUST FUND,
directly on behalf of itself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of THE CARLYLE GROUP INC. and derivatively on behalf
of THE CARLYLE GROUP INC., Plaintiff v. WILLIAM E. CONWAY, JR.,
DANIEL A. D'ANIELLO, DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN, PETER CLARE, JAMES H.
HANCE JR., KEWSONG LEE, GLENN YOUNGKIN, LAWTON FITT, JANET HILL,
WILLIAM J. SHAW, ANTHONY WELTERS, DR. THOMAS S. ROBERTSON, CURTIS
BUSER, JEFFREY FERGUSON, CHRISTOPHER FINN, THE CARLYLE GROUP INC.,
and CARLYLE GROUP MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2022-0664-MTZ (Del. Ch., July 29, 2022) is a class action against
the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of The Carlyle
Group LP's Second Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited
Partnership (LPA), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of the Master Reorganization Agreement, breach
of certificate of incorporation, tortious interference, and unjust
enrichment.
According to the complaint, the Defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the Plaintiff and similarly situated public stockholders
by knowingly and intentionally causing or allowing Carlyle to make
substantial overpayments and share over-issuances to the tax
receivable agreement (TRA) holders on terms that they knew were not
entirely fair to the public stockholders. Moreover, the Defendants
are also liable for receiving the TRA buyout payments and the share
over-issuance in violation of clear and unambiguous provisions of
the Master Reorganization Agreement. As a result of the Defendants'
actions, Carlyle and its stockholders were harmed, says the suit.
City of Pittsburgh Comprehensive Municipal Pension Trust Fund is a
pension fund in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The Carlyle Group Inc. is a financial services company,
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Carlyle Group Management LLC is a global investment firm,
headquartered in Washington, D.C. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-3500
- and –
Randall J. Baron, Esq.
Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 231-1058
- and –
Gladriel Shobe, Esq.
SHOBE & SHOBE, LLP
Jarrod Shobe P.O. Box 7132
Provo, UT 84602
Telephone: (385) 722-4451
CBOE GLOBAL MARKETS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam G. Unikowsky , Gregory Boyle and Reid J. Schar of Jenner &
Block wrote on Mondaq that the Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit affirmed a decision issued by an Illinois federal court
dismissing all counts against Cboe Global Markets, Inc. in an
investor suit over the exchange's alleged failure to prevent
manipulation of its volatility index.
The claims were based on the Securities Exchange Act and the
Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). As to the securities claim, the
Seventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs' allegations were
insufficient to establish Cboe's intent to deceive. In affirming
the dismissal of the plaintiffs' CEA claim, the Seventh Circuit
overturned prior Seventh Circuit law and ended 35 years of
precedent that negatively affected futures exchanges and
self-regulatory organizations (SROs). Under the CEA, an exchange or
SRO can be liable only if it acts in "bad faith." In a 1987
decision called Bosco v. Serhant, the Seventh Circuit opined that
"bad faith" means "negligence" under certain circumstances--a
ruling that made it easier for plaintiffs to bring CEA claims
against futures exchanges and SROs. In the Seventh Circuit's
decision in Cboe's case, the court repudiated the Bosco
"negligence" standard and adopted a more stringent interpretation
of "bad faith" under which Cboe prevailed.
Partner Adam G. Unikowsky argued the case before the court and
Partners Gregory M. Boyle, and Reid J. Schar helped lead the team.
[GN]
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in MacClelland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cellco Partnership, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled TERESA MACCLELLAND, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, et al., Defendants, Case No.
21-cv-08592-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.
The Plaintiffs, individually, as private attorneys general, and on
behalf of a putative class of other customers similarly situated,
allege that Defendants Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
and Verizon Communications Inc. (collectively, "Verizon"), engaged
in false advertising by failing to disclose an "Administrative
Charge" for wireless services, and misrepresenting that the fee is
a tax or government regulation. The Plaintiffs assert claims under
California law pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, seeking public
injunctive relief, private injunctive relief, and restitution.
Plaintiffs Teresa MacClelland, Karen Umberger, and Scott Willits
filed the complaint on Nov. 3, 2021. On Nov. 10, 2021, the
Plaintiffs sent a demand letter to Verizon that described their
claims and this dispute. On Dec. 31, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the
operative first amended complaint (FAC), adding 24 additional
Plaintiffs. Verizon then moved to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings.
On May 19, 2022, the Court heard oral argument regarding Verizon's
motion to compel arbitration. Almost three weeks later, Verizon
requested leave to file a "notification of change" to Verizon's
Customer Agreement that addressed a statute of limitations issue
that the Court had raised during the hearing. The Plaintiffs then
filed an opposition to Verizon's motion for leave. On June 23,
2022, the Court granted leave for the parties to submit
supplemental briefing to address Viking River Cruises, Inc. v.
Moriana, 142 S.Ct. 1906 (2022).
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 13, 2022, Judge
Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California denied Defendant Verizon's motion to compel
arbitration. Judge Chen held that the severance clauses are not
dispositive in the case. He also found that there is strong
evidence that Verizon was trying to impose an "inferior forum" on
its customers. He reached this conclusion based on the number of
unconscionable provisions, their nature, and the overall effect
which is entirely foreseeable and intended. It appeared that the
object of the Agreement is to force Verizon consumers into an
inferior (and, in many circumstances, wholly ineffective) forum, he
said.
Judge Chen further noted that permitting the Agreement to stand
because Verizon proposes to sever any unconscionable provisions
creates a "perverse incentive." The remedy of severance, therefore,
may indirectly reward systemic unconscionability. The remedy of
severance deserves close consideration and scrutiny.
Judge Chen concluded that severance of the unconscionable
provisions is not appropriate and, therefore, denied Verizon's
motion to compel arbitration. Verizon's request to stay proceedings
was also denied as moot.
The Defendants seek a review of Judge Chen's ruling.
The appellate case is captioned as Teresa MacClelland, et al. v.
Cellco Partnership, et al., Case No. 22-16020, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on July 13, 2022.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellants Cellco Partnership and Verizon Communications,
Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due on July 20, 2022;
-- Transcript was to be ordered by August 11, 2022;
-- Transcript is due on September 12, 2022;
-- Appellants Cellco Partnership and Verizon Communications,
Inc. opening brief is due on October 20, 2022;
-- Appellees Michael Branom, Molly Brown, Michael Carney, Tim
Frasch, Patricia Gagan, Anna Gutierrez, Linda Jenkins, Augustus
Johnson, William Kaupelis, Marilyn Kaye, Janette Lisner, William
Eric Lough, Teresa MacClelland, David Massaro, Louise Monsour,
Darleen Perez, Gabrielle Pozzuoli, Valerie Reed, Bruce Schramm,
Kerry Showalter, John St. Jarre, Gloria Stern, Edna Toy, Teresa
Toy, Karen Umberger, Vanessa West and Scott Willits answering brief
is due on November 21, 2022; and
-- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]
Defendants-Appellants CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DBA Verizon Wireless, and
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC. are represented by:
Cristina Henriquez, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
- and -
Shon Morgan, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Plaintiffs-Appellees TERESA MACCLELLAND, et al., for themselves, as
private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:
Che Corrington, Esq.
Daniel Hattis, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone: (425) 233-8633
- and -
Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq.
HATTIS & LUKACS
936 Woodlawn Drive
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
Telephone: (805) 233-8062
CISION US: $325K Class Settlement in Mikityuk Suit Wins Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANATOLIY MIKITYUK, et al., Plaintiffs v. CISION US
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-510 (LJL) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Lewis J. Liman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
approval of a collective action settlement agreement, service
awards, attorneys' fees, and costs.
The Plaintiffs are former sales representatives ("SRs") of
Defendants Cision and/or Falcon Social, Inc. Cision is a provider
of public relations ("PR") software and related professional
services, and Falcon is a social media management platform that was
acquired by Cision in January 2019.
In brief, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants "failed to pay
SRs compensation for all hours worked, including straight time
compensation for hours under 40 and proper overtime compensation
for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, and failed to keep accurate
records of the hours that SRs worked. They allege that the
Defendants' "unlawful conduct has been pursuant to a corporate
policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state wage and hour laws."
The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and a FLSA
collective for the Defendants' willful and intentional failure to
pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated SRs the overtime wages
to which they were entitled under the FLSA, and on behalf of
various Plaintiffs and putative classes made up of people who have
worked for the Defendants as SRs in different states for the
Defendants' violations of those states' labor laws related to
overtime and straight-time compensation and provision of wage
notices
The New York class brings claim for violation of New York Labor
Law's overtime provisions and straight-time provisions, for failure
to provide accurate wage statements, as required by NYLL, for
failure to provide wage notice that complies with NYLL, and for
violation of Illinois Wage Laws' overtime provisions. The Illinois
class brings claim for violation of Illinois Wage Laws'
straight-time provisions. The Maryland class brings claim for
violation of the Maryland Wage and Hour Law's overtime provisions
and for violation of the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law's
timely payment provisions.
The Defendants deny that they violated the law.
Anatoliy Mikityuk, Mitch Tallungan, and Michael Esquibel filed this
action against Cision on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated on Jan. 20, 2021. They thereafter sought
approval of a court-authorized notice pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), and filed a first amended complaint. On May 4,
2021, the Court granted the request for court-authorized notice
under Section 216(b), and, on June 11, 2021, it approved a revised
form of notice and consent to be mailed to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs. Eventually, 35 opt-in Plaintiffs joined the FLSA
collective action.
On July 16, 2021, the Court so ordered a joint stipulation
providing that Cision consented to the filing of a second amended
complaint and that Esquibal would be an opt-in Plaintiff rather
than a named Plaintiff. On July 19, Named Plaintiffs Mikituk,
Tallungan, and Wade Honey filed the second amended complaint. On
Nov. 29, 2021, over the objection of Cision, the Court permitted
the Plaintiffs to amend their complaint once again. The third
amended complaint—the operative complaint -- added Falcon as a
defendant.
Between the filing of the first and fourth complaints, the parties
actively litigated the case. On May 4, 2022, they submitted a joint
letter to inform the Court that they reached a settlement in
principle of the claims in the action. On June 9, 2022, the
Plaintiffs submitted their unopposed motion for approval of the
collective action settlement and for service awards, attorneys'
fees, and costs.
The proposed settlement initially provided to the Court was signed
by each of the Named Plaintiffs and by the Defendants, but it was
not signed by the opt-in Plaintiffs. On June 14, 2022, the Court
issued an Order soliciting the parties' views on whether it should
require, before granting final approval of the settlement
agreement, either the agreement to be submitted with the signatures
of the Named Plaintiffs and the opt-in Plaintiffs or the opt-in
Plaintiffs to be given notice of the settlement and an opportunity
to be heard by the Court.
In response, the Plaintiffs submitted a letter to the Court
expressing the view that the most efficient approach would be to
have their counsel contact the opt-in Plaintiffs to confirm their
consent to the settlement and then file a declaration attesting to
the steps taken. The Court thereafter set a date for a hearing on
the motion for approval and directed the Plaintiffs, in advance of
that date, to "submit to the Court a revised settlement agreement
containing signatures reflecting the agreement of each of the named
plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs to the terms of the settlement
agreement."
The Court held a hearing on the motion for approval on July 25,
2022. In advance of that hearing, and pursuant to the Court's
directive, the Plaintiffs submitted a settlement agreement and
release executed by the Named Plaintiffs and each of the opt-in
Plaintiffs.
Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendants agreed to pay
$325,000, "which will fully resolve and satisfy any and all amounts
to be paid to Eligible Settlement Participants, any Court-approved
Service Awards, the Settlement Administrator's fees and costs, and
any claim for the Plaintiffs' Counsel's fees and costs." Under its
terms, Eligible Settlement Participants -- defined as "the 38
individuals who filed consent to join forms to join this matter,
including the Named Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs, who have not
been withdrawn or been dismissed" -- would receive an amount to be
determined by a formula by which the individual would be given
credit for each workweek worked in a covered job title during the
relevant time period.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a Plaintiff's endorsement of
a settlement check "constitutes a full and final release of that
Plaintiff's Claims" as "alleged in the operative Complaint or that
could have been alleged based on the facts alleged" during the
relevant time period that the Plaintiff worked in a covered job
title. The agreement also contains an additional broad release in
favor of the Defendants from the Named Plaintiffs for "all
possible" claims and actions "of any kind or nature" from any time
before the signature of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement also provides that certain sums will be
requested by the Plaintiffs in their approval motion. First, the
"Plaintiffs' Counsel will ask the Court to approve payment of up to
one-third of the Gross Settlement Amount as an award of attorneys'
fees, plus reimbursement of up to $24,441 in reasonable
out-of-pocket costs and expenses from the Gross Settlement Amount,"
but specifies that "the substance of the Plaintiffs' Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and costs is not part of this
Agreement" and that "any money requested for attorneys' fees or
costs that are not approved by the Court will become part of the
Net Settlement Fund." Second, the "Plaintiff will request service
awards in the following amounts to be paid from the Gross
Settlement Amount:" (1) up to $10,000 to the Named Plaintiffs; (2)
up to $2,500 to the opt-in who was deposed; and (3) up to $1,000 to
the opt-in who submitted a declaration. The service awards are in
addition to what each recipient would otherwise recover from the
Net Settlement Fund.
After the hearing, and in response to inquiries raised by the
Court, the Plaintiffs submitted a supplemental letter providing
additional information regarding the Settlement Agreement's release
provision concerning the Named Plaintiffs and the travel costs
incurred in connection with deposition preparation and defense. The
letter stated that "the parties agreed to amend the Settlement
Agreement to make the general release executed by the Named
Plaintiffs mutual" and "plan to file an addendum to the agreement
shortly." It also provided additional detail about costs amounting
to $4,092.26 for travel expenses. On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiffs
filed an addendum to the Settlement Agreement that clarified that
the general release provision for the Named Plaintiff is mutual.
Judge Liman grants the motion for approval of the Settlement
Agreement, finding that the settlement is fair. First, he says, the
level of recovery is in line with the relative amounts that other
courts have found to be fair and reasonable. Second, the settlement
will also enable the parties to avoid additional expenses in
establishing their claims and defenses, including avoiding the
litigation risks faced by the Plaintiffs. Third, the Settlement
Agreement is also the product of arm's-length bargaining between
highly experienced counsel, and there is no evidence to suggest
that there has been any fraud or collusion. Fourth, Judge Liman
says the release provisions fair and reasonable. Fifth, he approves
the service awards of up to $10,000 for the Named Plaintiffs,
$2,500 for the opt-in deponent, and $1,000 for the opt-in
declarants to compensate them for the time and effort expended in
assisting the prosecution of the litigation, the risks incurred by
becoming and continuing as a litigant, and any other burdens they
sustained.
Sixth, Judge Liman holds that the notice -- and the process for
distributing it -- fairly apprises the Plaintiffs of their rights
and obligations under the Settlement Agreement. Seventh, he is
satisfied by the records that the requested fee of one-third of the
settlement amount -- or $108,333.33 -- is reasonable and
appropriate. Finally, he is satisfied that the costs -- as the
other costs submitted by the Plaintiffs' counsel -- are reasonable
and of the sort that would ordinarily be charged to clients in
litigation such as this.
The Court will retain jurisdiction to resolve any disputes that
arise in connection with the agreement.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Opinion & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4fsj3rm9 from Leagle.com.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR: Cody Alleges Illegal Wiretapping to Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
ANNETTE CODY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR CO., Defendants, Case
No. 30-2022-01273036-CU-MT-CXC- ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Aug.
2, 2022) is an action against the Defendant for illegal
wiretapping of the electronic communications with the Defendant's
website, www.columbia.com (the "Website").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that unknown to visitors to
the Website, the Defendant secretly deployed keystrol monitoring
software that the Defendant uses to surreptitiously intercept,
monitor, and record the communications, including keystroke and
mouse clicks, of all visitors to its Website. The Defendant neither
informs visitors not seeks their express or implied consent prior
to the wiretapping, says the suit.
COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes active outdoor apparels. The Company offers jackets,
rainwear, golf apparels, bottoms, bags, coolers, hats, sunglasses,
and footwear products. Columbia Sportswear serves customers
worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949)706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattomeys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattomeys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattomeys.com
CORECIVIC INC: Must Respond to Class Cert. Bid by August 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILHEN HILL BARRIENTOS, et
al., v. CORECIVIC, INC., Case No. 4:18-cv-00070-CDL (M.D. Ga.), the
Hon. Judge Clay D. Land entered an order granting second joint
motion to extend deadlines for responses and replies re:
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Daubert motion.
The Court further Ordered that the Defendant's Responses to the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Daubert Motion are
due by August 12, 2022. The Plaintiffs' Replies to those Responses
are due by September 16, 2022.
CoreCivic, formerly the Corrections Corporation of America, is a
company that owns and manages private prisons and detention centers
and operates others on a concession basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A88tcE at no extra charge.[CC]
CURO GROUP: Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 27
---------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CINDY MALONEY, Derivatively on Behalf of CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP.
and as Executrix of Estate of Melvyn Klein, Plaintiff,
v. DONALD F. GAYHARDT, CHRIS MASTO, DOUG RIPPEL, DALE E. WILLIAMS,
DAVID M. KIRCHHEIMER, MIKE MCKNIGHT, ELIZABETH WEBSTER, CHAD
FAULKNER, ANDREW FRAWLEY, GILLIAN VAN SCHAICK, KAREN WINTERHOF,
WILLIAM BAKER, and ROGER W. DEAN,
Defendants,
and CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., Nominal Defendant.
Case No. 2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ
PATRICK AYERS and JOHN WATT, Derivatively on Behalf of CURO GROUP
HOLDINGS CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v. CHAD FAULKNER, ANDREW FRAWLEY, DON GAYHARDT, DAVID M.
KIRCHHEIMER, CHRIS MASTO, MIKE MCKNIGHT, DOUG RIPPEL, DALE E.
WILLIAMS, KAREN WINTERHOF, WILLIAM BAKER, ROGER W. DEAN, FRIEDMAN
FLEISCHER & LOWE CAPITAL PARTNERS II, L.P., FFL EXECUTIVE PARTNERS
II, L.P., and FFL PARALLEL FUND II, L.P., Defendants,
and CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP., Nominal
Defendant.
Case No. 2:21-cv-02311-KHV-TJJ
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III)
MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES A Federal Court
authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
TO: ALL HOLDERS OF CURO GROUP HOLDINGS CORP. ("CURO" OR THE
"COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF THE CLOSE OF TRADING ON JUNE 24, 2022
("CURRENT CURO SHAREHOLDERS"). The purpose of this Notice is to
inform you of: (i) the existence of shareholder derivative actions
captioned Maloney v. Gayhardt, Case No. 2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ (D.
Kan.) (the "Maloney Action") and Ayers v. Faulkner, Case No.
2:21-cv-02311-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.) (the "Ayers/Watt Action," and
together with the Maloney Action, the "Related Derivative
Actions"), pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas (the "Court"); (ii) a proposed settlement of the
Related Derivative Actions (the "Settlement"), subject to the
approval of the Court, as provided in the Amended Stipulation of
Settlement for the Related Derivative Actions dated June 24, 2022
(the "Amended Stipulation"); (iii) the hearing that the Court will
hold on October 27, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. to determine whether to
finally approve the proposed Settlement and to consider the
application by Plaintiffs' Counsel in the Related Derivative
Actions for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and reasonable
service awards; and (iv) Current CURO Shareholders' rights with
respect to the proposed Settlement and Plaintiffs' Counsel's
application for attorneys' fees and expenses.
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS
NOTICE. The Amended Stipulation was entered into as of June 24,
2022 (i) in the Maloney Action by and among plaintiff Cindy Maloney
(as Executrix of Estate of Melvyn Klein) ("Maloney") and defendants
Donald F. Gayhardt, Chris Masto, Doug Rippel, Dale E. Williams,
David M. Kirchheimer, Mike McKnight, Elizabeth Webster, Chad
Faulkner, Andrew Frawley, Gillian Van Schaick, Karen Winterhof,
William Baker, Roger W. Dean, and nominal defendant CURO
(collectively, the "Maloney Defendants"); and (ii) in the
Ayers/Watt Action by and among plaintiffs Patrick Ayers ("Ayers")
and John Watt ("Watt," and together with Ayers and Maloney,
"Plaintiffs"), and defendants Chad Faulkner, Andrew Frawley, Donald
F. Gayhardt, David M. Kirchheimer, Chris Masto, Mike McKnight, Doug
Rippel, Dale E. Williams, Karen Winterhof, William Baker, Roger W.
Dean, Friedman Fleischer & Lowe Capital Partners II, L.P., FFL
Executive Partners II, L.P., FFL Parallel Fund II, L.P., and
nominal defendant CURO (collectively, the "Ayers/Watt Defendants,"
and together with the Maloney Defendants, "Defendants"). The
Settlement provides that CURO will implementcertain modifications
to its corporate governance and oversight functions. Because the
Settlement involves "Plaintiffs' Counsel" consist of the following
law firms: (i) Law Offices of E. Wayne Taff, (ii) Gainey McKenna &
Egleston, (iii) Rigrodsky Law, P.A., and (iv) Shuman, Glenn &
Stecker.
All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Notice shall
have the meaning provided in the Amended Stipulation, which is
available in the "Investors-Corporate Governance" section of CURO's
website, https://ir.curo.com.
The resolution of derivative claims, which were brought on behalf
of and for the benefit of CURO, the benefits from the Settlement
will be conferred upon CURO. Please Note: Individual CURO
shareholders will not receive any direct payment from the
Settlement. Accordingly, there is no Proof of Claim Form for
shareholders to submit in connection with this Settlement. Also,
shareholders are not required to take any action in response to
this Notice.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE? 1. The purpose of this Notice
is to explain the Related Derivative Actions, the terms of the
proposed Settlement, and how the proposed Settlement affects CURO
shareholders' legal rights.
2. In a derivative action, one or more persons or entities who are
current shareholders of a corporation sue on behalf of and for the
benefit of the corporation, seeking to enforce the
corporation's legal rights. In this case, Plaintiffs have filed
suit against the Defendants on behalf of and for the benefit of
CURO.
3. The Court has scheduled a hearing to consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement and the application
by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
and reasonable service award (the "Settlement Hearing").
WHAT ARE THESE CASES ABOUT? WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO FAR? THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATED DERIVATIVE ACTIONS AND THE SETTLEMENT
HAS BEEN PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE SETTLING PARTIES. THE COURT
HAS MADE NO FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH MATTERS, AND THIS NOTICE
IS NOT AN EXPRESSION OR STATEMENT BY EITHER COURT OF FINDINGS OF
FACT.
4. On July 15, 2021, Melvyn Klein, derivatively on behalf of CURO,
filed a complaint against he Maloney Defendants entitled Klein v.
Gayhardt, Case No. 2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.).
5. On July 16, 2021, plaintiffs Ayers and Watt, derivatively on
behalf of CURO, filed a substantially similar complaint against the
Ayers/Watt Defendants, initiating the Ayers/Watt Action on behalf
of nominal defendant CURO.
6. On September 30, 2021, in Klein v. Gayhardt, Case No.
2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), counsel for plaintiff Melvyn Klein
("Klein") filed a Suggestion of Death as to Klein after counsel for
Klein informed counsel for Defendants that Klein had recently
passed away; that an Estate proceeding has been commenced in
Surrogate's Court in the State of New York; and that the Executor,
once appointed by the New York Court, intended to substitute into
the litigation. On March 4, 2022, Klein, by and through Maloney,
the Executrix of the Klein Estate, moved that the Court substitute
Maloney in Klein's place as plaintiff in the action, which the
Court granted on March 7, 2022. The case is now entitled Maloney v.
Gayhardt, Case No. 2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.).
7. As a result of extensive, good faith, arm's-length negotiations,
the parties in the Related Derivative Actions (the "Settling
Parties") reached an agreement in principle to settle the Related
Derivative Actions, which was memorialized in a Memorandum of
Understanding, which was executed by the Settling Parties on March
14, 2022. The Memorandum of Understanding set forth, among other
things, the Settling Parties' agreement to resolve the Related
Derivative Actions in exchange for the CURO Board of Directors (the
"Board") adopting and implementing certain modifications to
corporate governance and oversight functions set forth in the
Settlement Term Sheet (the "Term Sheet"), attached as Exhibit A to
the Amended Stipulation, no later than ninety (90) days following
the entry of the final Court Order approving the Settlement.
8. The Board reviewed and evaluated the proposed Settlement,
including the Term Sheet, and determined that, in the Board's
independent business judgment, the Settlement confers a substantial
benefit upon CURO and its shareholders and that each element of the
Settlement is in the best interests of CURO and its shareholders.
9. On June 24, 2022, the Settling Parties entered into the Amended
Stipulation, which reflects the final and binding agreement by and
among the Settling Parties and supersedes the Stipulation of
Settlement signed by the Settling Parties on
May 6, 2022.
10. In connection with settlement discussions and negotiations
leading to the proposed Settlement set forth in the Amended
Stipulation, counsel for the Settling Parties did not engage in any
negotiations, and did not reach any agreement as to, the amount of
any application by Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses or reasonable service award until the material
terms of the Settlement were negotiated at
arm's-length and agreed upon.
11. On July 19, 2022, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement, authorized this Notice to be provided to Current CURO
Shareholders, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider
whether to grant final approval of the Settlement.
WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT?
12. In consideration for the settlement and release of all Released
Claims against the Released Persons, CURO has agreed to implement
the terms set forth in the Term Sheet, attached as Exhibit A to the
Amended Stipulation.
13. The Board has reviewed and evaluated the proposed Settlement,
including the Term Sheet, and has determined that, in the Board's
independent business judgment, the terms of the Settlement confer a
substantial benefit upon CURO and its shareholders and that each
element of the Settlement is in the best interests of CURO and its
shareholders.
WHAT ARE THE SETTLING PARTIES' REASONS FOR THE SETTLEMENT?
14. Plaintiffs believe that the claims asserted in the Related
Derivative Actions have merit and that the evidence developed to
date supports the claims. However, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
Counsel recognize and acknowledge the expense and length of
continued proceedings that would be necessary to prosecute the
Related Derivative Actions against Defendants through trial and
through appeals. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel also have taken
into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation,
especially in complex actions such as the Related Derivative
Actions, as well as the difficulties and delays inherent in such
litigation. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel also are cognizant
of the inherent challenges of establishing standing in shareholder
derivative litigation and the possible defenses to the claims
alleged in the Related
Derivative Actions. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel believe that
the Settlement set forth in the Amended Stipulation confers
substantial benefits upon CURO and Current CURO Shareholders. Based
on their evaluation, Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Counsel have
determined that the Settlement set forth in the Amended Stipulation
is in the best interests of CURO and Current CURO Shareholders and
is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and have agreed to settle the
Related Derivative Actions upon the terms and subject to the
conditions set forth herein.
15. Defendants, to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction of
further litigation, and without admitting the validity of any
allegations made in the Related Derivative Actions, or any
liability with respect thereto, have concluded that it is desirable
that the claims against them be settled on the terms reflected in
the Amended Stipulation. Defendants deny that they committed, or
aided and abetted in the commission of, any violation of law or
duty or engaged in any wrongful acts whatsoever, including
specifically those alleged in the Related Derivative Actions, and
expressly maintain that they have complied with their statutory,
fiduciary, and other legal and equitable duties, and are entering
into the Amended Stipulation and the Settlement to eliminate the
burden, expense, and uncertainties inherent in further litigation.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED? WHAT CLAIMS WILL
THE SETTLEMENT RELEASE?
16. If the Settlement is approved, the Settling Parties will
request that the Court enter a Final Judgment and Order of
Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Judgment"). Pursuant to the
Judgment, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement, the following
releases will occur:
Release of Claims by Plaintiff and Current CURO Shareholders:
17. Upon the Effective Date, to the extent that Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs' Counsel, or any of the Current CURO Shareholders
possess any of the Released Claims derivatively, Plaintiffs,
Plaintiffs' Counsel, and each of the Current CURO Shareholders
(solely in their capacity as CURO shareholders) shall be deemed to
have, and by operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally,
irrevocably, and forever waived, released, relinquished, discharged
and dismissed all Released Claims (including Unknown Claims)
against the Released Persons, including any and all claims
(including Unknown Claims) against the Released Persons arising out
of, relating to, or in connection with the defense, Settlement, or
resolution of the Actions.
18. Upon the Effective Date, to the extent Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs'
Counsel, and any of the Current CURO Shareholders possess any of
the Released Claims derivatively, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs' Counsel,
and each of the Current CURO Shareholders (solely in their capacity
as CURO shareholders) shall be forever barred, estopped, and
enjoined from commencing, instituting, or prosecuting any of the
Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) or any action or other
proceeding against any of the Released Persons based on the
Released Claims, or any action or proceeding arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with the Released Claims or the
filing, prosecution, defense, settlement, or resolution of the
Actions. Nothing herein shall in any way impair or restrict the
rights of any Settling Party to enforce the terms of the Amended
Stipulation.
19. As defined in the Amended Stipulation, "Released Claims" means
any and all actions, suits, claims, demands, rights, sanctions,
liabilities, damages, and causes of action, including both known
claims and Unknown Claims, whether arising under federal, state,
common, or foreign law, (i) that were asserted in the Related
Derivative Actions or (ii) that could have been asserted in any
forum derivatively on behalf of CURO, or by CURO directly, arising
out of or based upon the facts, allegations, transactions,
occurrences, matters, or events described in the Related Derivative
Actions, provided, however, that the Released Claims shall not
include any claims relating to the enforcement of the Amended
Stipulation, the Settlement, or the Judgment.
20. As defined in the Amended Stipulation, "Unknown Claims" means
any Released Claim(s) that Plaintiffs, CURO, or a Current CURO
Shareholder does not know or suspect to exist in their favor at the
time of the release of the Released Persons, including, but not
limited to, claims, which, if known by him, her, or it, might have
affected his, her, or its decision with respect to the Settlement,
the release of the Released Persons, or the decision not to object
to or opt out of this Settlement. With respect to any and all
Released Claims against the Released Persons, the Settling Parties
stipulate and agree that, upon the Effective Date, Plaintiffs,
CURO, and the Current CURO Shareholders shall be deemed to have,
and by operation of the Judgment shall have, expressly waived, any
and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by the law of
any state or territory or other jurisdiction or principle of common
law or foreign law
that is similar, comparable, or equivalent to California Civil Code
1542, which provides: A general release does not extend to claims
that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to
exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and
that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or
her settlement with the debtor or released party.
Plaintiffs, CURO, and each Current CURO Shareholder acknowledge
that they may hereafter discover facts in addition to or different
from those which they now know or believe to be true with respect
to the subject matter of the Released Claims, but they stipulate
and agree that, upon the Effective Date of the Settlement,
Plaintiffs, CURO, and each Current CURO Shareholder shall
expressly, fully, finally, and forever settle and release any and
all Released Claims, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected,
contingent or non-contingent, accrued or unaccrued, apparent or
unapparent, whether or not concealed or hidden, which now exist, or
heretofore have existed, upon any theory of law or equity now
existing or coming into existence in the future, including, but not
limited to, conduct which is negligent, intentional, with or
without malice, or a breach of any duty, law or rule, without
regard to the subsequent discovery or
existence of such different or additional facts. The Settling
Parties acknowledge, and the Current CURO Shareholders shall be
deemed by operation of the Judgment to have acknowledged, that the
foregoing waiver was separately bargained for and is a key element
of the Settlement.
21. As defined in the Amended Stipulation, "Released Persons" means
each and all of the Defendants and their Related Parties.
Release of Claims by Defendants:
22. Upon the Effective Date, CURO shall be deemed to have, and by
operation of the Judgment shall have, fully, finally, and forever
released, relinquished, and discharged all Released Claims
(including Unknown Claims) against the Released Persons.
23. Upon the Effective Date, CURO shall be forever barred,
estopped, and enjoined from commencing, instituting, or prosecuting
any of the Released Claims (including Unknown Claims) or any action
or other proceeding against any of the Released Persons based on
the Released Claims, or any action or proceeding arising out of,
relating to, or in connection with the Released Claims or the
filing, prosecution, defense, settlement, or resolution of the
Related Derivative Actions. Nothing herein shall in any way impair
or restrict the rights of any Settling Party to enforce the terms
of this Amended Stipulation.
24. Upon the Effective Date, each of the Released Persons shall be
deemed to have fully, finally, and forever released, relinquished,
and discharged Plaintiffs and their Related Parties, Plaintiffs'
Counsel and their Related Parties, and Current CURO Shareholders
(solely in their capacity as CURO shareholders) and their Related
Parties from all claims (including Unknown Claims), arising out
of, relating to, or in connection with the institution,
prosecution, assertion, settlement, or resolution of the Related
Derivative Actions or the Released Claims.
25. By Order of the Court, all proceedings in the Related
Derivative Actions, other than proceedings necessary to carry out
or enforce the terms and conditions of the Amended Stipulation,
have been stayed until otherwise ordered by the Court. Also,
pending final determination of whether the Settlement should be
approved, the Court has barred and enjoined the commencement,
prosecution, instigation, or participation in the commencement or
prosecution of any action asserting any Released Claims against any
of the Released Persons in any court or tribunal.
HOW WILL THE ATTORNEYS BE PAID?
26. In connection with the approval of the Settlement and in light
of the substantial benefits the Settlement confers on CURO and its
shareholders, Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to apply to the Court for
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, in an aggregate amount of
no more than $345,000 to be paid by CURO or its insurers (the "Fee
Award"). In addition, Plaintiffs' Counsel intend to apply to the
Court for reasonable service awards for Plaintiffs in the Related
Derivative Actions not to exceed $10,000 in total, which Defendants
will not oppose. Subject to the Court's approval, the service
awards to Plaintiffs shall be funded from the Fee Award, which is
not to exceed $345,000. Defendants agree not to oppose Plaintiffs'
Counsel's applications, so long as the total amount of attorneys'
fees and expenses and reasonable service awards does not exceed
$345,000.
27. The Court will determine the amount of any attorneys' fee and
expense award for Plaintiffs' Counsel and reasonable service awards
for Plaintiffs. CURO shareholders are not personally liable for
paying any fee and expense award or reasonable service award.
WHEN AND WHERE WILL THE SETTLEMENT HEARING BE HELD? DO I HAVE THE
RIGHT TO APPEAR AT THE SETTLEMENT HEARING? MAY I OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT AND SPEAK AT THE HEARING IF I DON'T LIKE THE SETTLEMENT?
28. You do not need to attend the Settlement Hearing. The Court
will consider any submission made in accordance with the provisions
below even if you do not attend the Settlement Hearing.
29. Please Note: The date and time of the Settlement Hearing may
change without further written notice to Current CURO Shareholders.
In addition, the ongoing COVID-19 health emergency is a fluid
situation that creates the possibility that the Court may decide to
conduct the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference,
or otherwise allow Current CURO Shareholders to appear at the
hearing by phone or video, without further written notice to
Current CURO Shareholders. In order to determine whether the date
and time of the Settlement Hearing have changed, or whether Current
CURO Shareholders must or may participate by phone or video, it is
important that you monitor the Court's docket and the
"Investors-Corporate Governance" section of CURO's website,
https://ir.curo.com, before making any plans to attend the
Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date
or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
"Investors-Corporate Governance" section
of CURO's website, https://ir.curo.com. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Current CURO Shareholders to participate in the
Settlement Hearing by telephone or video conference, the
information needed to access the conference will be posted to the
"Investors-Corporate Governance" section of CURO's website,
https://ir.curo.com.
30. The Settlement Hearing will be held on October 27, 2022 at 9:00
a.m., before The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, either in person at
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas in
Courtroom No. 440 of the Robert J. Dole U.S. Courthouse, 500 State
Avenue, Suite 529, Kansas City, KS 66101, or by telephone or
videoconference (in the discretion of the Court), to: (1) determine
whether the terms of the Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) consider any objections to the
Settlement submitted in accordance with this Notice; (3) determine
whether the Judgment finally approving the Settlement,
substantially in the form of Exhibit D to the Amended Stipulation,
should be entered, dismissing the Related Derivative. Actions with
prejudice, and releasing the Released Claims against the Released
Persons; (4) determine whether the requested Fee Award and
reasonable service awards should be approved; and (5) consider any
other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in
connection with the Settlement.
31. Any Current CURO Shareholder may object to the Settlement or
Plaintiffs' Counsel's applications for the Fee Award and reasonable
service awards. Objections must be in writing. You must file any
written objection, together with copies of all other papers and
briefs supporting the objection, with the Clerk's Office at the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas address set
forth below, as well as serve copies on Plaintiffs' Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel at the addresses and e-mail addresses set forth
below by hand or first class mail, such that the objection is
received on or before October 6, 2022.
Clerk's Office United States District Court
Frank Carlson Federal Building 444
S.E. Quincy, Suite 490
Topeka, KS 66683
Defendants' Counsel Berkowitz Oliver LLP
Anthony J. Durone
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
adurone@berkowitzoliver.com
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Tariq Mundiya
Todd G.Cosenza
787 Seventh Ave New York, New York 10019
tmundiya@willkie.com
tcosenza@willkie.com
Plaintiffs' Counsel
Law Offices of E. Wayne Taff
Earl Wayne Taff
3401 N. Perrin Road
Independence, Missouri 64058
ewt@tafflawfirm.com
Rigrodsky Law, P.A.
Herbert W. Mondros
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801 hwm@rl-legal.com
Shuman, Glenn & Stecker
Rusty E. Glenn 600
17th Street, Suite 2900 South
Denver, CO 80202
rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
Gainey McKenna & Egleston
Thomas J. McKenna
501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
32. Any objections must identify the case name and civil action
number for the following derivative action: "Maloney v. Gayhardt,
Case No. 2:21-cv-02308-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.)," and they must: (i) state
the name, address, and telephone number of the person or entity
objecting, and if represented by counsel, the name, address, and
telephone number of such counsel, and must be signed by the
objector; (ii) state with specificity the grounds for
the objection, including any legal and evidentiary support the
objector wishes to bring to the Court's attention; and (iii)
include documentation sufficient to prove that the objector owned
shares of CURO common stock as of the close of trading on
June 24, 2022. Documentation establishing ownership of CURO common
stock must consist of copies of a monthly brokerage account
statement, or an authorized statement from the objector's broker
containing the information found in an account statement.
33. You may not object to the Settlement or Plaintiffs' Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses or the
reasonable services award if you are not a Current CURO
Shareholder.
34. You may file a written objection without having to appear at
the Settlement Hearing. You may not, however, appear at the
Settlement Hearing to present your objection unless you first file
and serve a written objection in accordance with the
procedures described above, unless the Court orders otherwise.
35. If you wish to be heard orally at the Settlement Hearing in
opposition to the approval of the Settlement or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
or reasonable service award, assuming you timely file and serve a
written objection as described above, you must also file a
notice of appearance with the Clerk's Office, which states your
intention to appear at the Settlement Hearing and your basis for
such appearance, and serve it on Plaintiffs' Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth in paragraph 31
above so that it is received on or before October 6, 2022. Persons
who intend to object and desire to present evidence at the
Settlement Hearing must include in their written objection or
notice of appearance the identity of any witnesses they may call to
testify and the subjects of their testimony, and exhibits they
intend to introduce into evidence at the hearing. Objectors who
intend to appear at the Settlement Hearing through counsel must
also identify that counsel by name, address, and telephone number.
Objectors and/or their counsel may be heard orally at the
discretion of the Court.
36. You are not required to hire an attorney to represent you in
making written objections or in appearing at the Settlement
Hearing. However, if you decide to hire an attorney, it will be at
your own expense, and that attorney must file a notice of
appearance with the Court and serve it on Plaintiffs' Counsel and
Defendants' Counsel at the addresses set forth in paragraph 31
above so that the notice is received on or before October 6, 2022.
37. The Settlement Hearing may be adjourned by the Court without
further written notice to Current CURO Shareholders. If you intend
to attend the Settlement Hearing, you should confirm the date and
time of the hearing as stated in paragraph 29 above.
38. Unless the Court orders otherwise, any Current CURO Shareholder
who does not object in the manner described above will be deemed to
have waived any objection and will be forever foreclosed from
making any objection to the proposed Settlement or Plaintiffs'
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses
and reasonable service award. Current CURO Shareholders do not need
to appear at the Settlement Hearing or take any other action to
indicate their approval.
SPECIAL NOTICE TO BROKERS, BANKS, AND OTHER PERSONS OR ENTITIES
THAT HOLD OWNERSHIP ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
39. Brokerage firms, banks and/or other persons or entities who
held shares of the common stock of CURO as of June 24, 2022 for the
benefit of others are requested to promptly send this Notice to all
of their respective beneficial owners. Specifically, nominees must
either (i) within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of this
Notice, request from Kroll Settlement Administration (the
"Settlement Administrator") sufficient copies of the Notice to
forward to all such beneficial owners and within seven (7) calendar
days of receipt of those Notices forward them to all such
beneficial owners; or (ii) within seven (7) calendar days of
receipt of this Notice, provide a list of the names and addresses
of all such beneficial owners to the Settlement
Administrator at Curosettlement@kroll.com. If you choose the second
option, the Settlement Administrator will send a copy of the Notice
to the beneficial owners you have identified on your list.
Regardless of whether you choose to complete the mailing yourself
or elect to have the mailing performed for you, you may
obtain reimbursement for reasonable administrative costs actually
incurred in connection with forwarding the Notice and which would
not have been incurred but for the obligation to forward the Notice
up to $0.20 per record plus postage (if
applicable), upon submission of appropriate documentation to the
Settlement Administrator.
CAN I SEE THE COURT FILE? WHOM SHOULD I CONTACT IF I HAVE
QUESTIONS?
40. This Notice contains only a summary of the terms of the
Settlement. For the full terms and conditions of the Settlement,
please see the Amended Stipulation available at "Investors-
Corporate Governance" section of CURO's website,
https://ir.curo.com. More detailed information about the matters
involved in the Related Derivative Actions can be obtained by
accessing the Court docket in these cases, for a fee, through the
Court's Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/ or by visiting, during regular office
hours, the Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for
the District of Kansas, Frank Carlson Federal Building, 444 S.E.
Quincy, Suite 490, Topeka, KS 66683. If you have questions
regarding the Settlement, you may write, call, or email the
following counsel for Plaintiffs:
Law Offices of E. Wayne Taff
Earl Wayne Taff
3401 N. Perrin Road
Independence, Missouri 64058
ewt@tafflawfirm.com
Rigrodsky Law, P.A.
Herbert W. Mondros
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220
Wilmington, DE 19801
hwm@rl-legal.com
Shuman, Glenn & Stecker
Rusty E. Glenn
600 17th Street, Suite 2900
South Denver, CO 80202
rusty@shumanlawfirm.com
Gainey McKenna & Egleston
Thomas J. McKenna
501 Fifth Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE THE COURT, THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE OR
THE SETTLEMENT.
Dated: July 19, 2022
By Order of the Court
United States District Court for the District of Kansas
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OH: Tarrify Properties Seeks Leave to File SAC
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARRIFY PROPERTIES, LLC,
v. CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 1:19-cv-02293-JG (N.D. Ohio),
the Plaintiff files motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint, and a renewed motion for class certification.
On December 2, 2019, the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Class
Action Complaint (FAC) against the Defendant. In relevant part, the
FAC alleged that the County, through proceedings before its Board
of Revision (BOR), violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution by directly transferring certain tax
delinquent vacant properties -- without a sale, and for no
consideration -- to other political subdivisions under the
provisions of O.R.C. section 323.78.
The Plaintiff sought to maintain its claims, individually, and on
behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals and
entities whose properties' fair market values exceeded the amount
of tax impositions thereon when they were directly transferred by
the County.
On December 21, 2020, this Court denied Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification on the grounds that Plaintiff could not meet
F.R.C.P. Rule 23's ascertainability, predominance, and superiority
requirements because determining the fair market values of
Plaintiff's and Class members' properties would involve
fact-intensive individualized inquiries.
On June 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed this Court's denial of the Certification Motion.
In light of those rulings, Plaintiff seeks leave to file a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), with the intention of
bringing a renewed motion for class certification, pursuant to Rule
23(b)(1)(A) and/or Rule 23(b)(2).
Cuyahoga County is a large urban county located in the northeastern
part of the U.S. state of Ohio. It is situated on the southern
shore of Lake Erie, across the U.S.-Canada maritime border.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vPgZe0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
www.attorneyzim.com
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 440-0020
Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
E-mail: firm@attorneyzim.com
- and -
Marc E. Dann, Esq.
Brian D. Flick, Esq.
Emily White, Esq.
DANNLAW
P.O. Box. 6031040
Cleveland, OH 44103
Telephone: (216) 373-0539
Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
- and -
Charles Gruenspan, Esq.
CHARLES GRUENSPAN CO., LPA
601 Commerce Park Square Four
23240 Chagrin Blvd.
Cleveland, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 595-6300
Facsimile: (216) 595-6307
E-mail: cgruenspanlpa@gmail.com
DAKOTA PLAINS: $13.95MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 4
--------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENTS, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
LITIGATION EXPENSES
A Federal Court authorized The Notice. This is not a solicitation
from a lawyer.
PLEASE READ THE NOTICE CAREFULLY. The Notice explains important
rights you may have, including the possible receipt of cash from
the Settlements. If you are a Class Member, your legal rights will
be affected whether or not you act.
PENDENCY OF THIS CLASS ACTION: Please be advised that your rights
may be affected by this class action lawsuit (the "Action") pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the "Court") concerning purchases of Dakota Plains
Holdings, Inc. ("Dakota Plains") common stock during the period
from March 23, 2012 through and including August 16, 2016, (the
"Class Period"). A Notice of the Pendency of this Class Action was
previously mailed on or about September 9, 2021.
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENTS: Please also be advised that the
Court-appointed Class Representative Jon D. Gruber (the "Class
Representative"), on behalf of himself and the Class, have reached
an agreement to a partial settlement of the Action with the Officer
and Director Defendants for a total of $13.95 million in cash that,
if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Officer
and Director Defendants' Settlement") against the Officer and
Director Defendants. The Class Representative has entered into a
separate settlement with defendant Ryan R. Gilbertson for his
cooperation at trial against non-settling defendant Michael L.
Reger. The two separate settlements are sometimes collectively
referred to herein as the "Settlements."
The Notice relates to proposed partial Settlements of claims in a
pending class action lawsuit brought by investors alleging that the
price of Dakota Plains common stock was artificially inflated as a
result of allegedly material omissions by Defendants Michael L.
Reger and Ryan R. Gilbertson and from statements issued by Dakota
Plains regarding the Company, during the Class Period. The Officer
and Director Defendants are Gabriel G. Claypool, Timothy R. Brady,
Craig M. McKenzie, Paul M. Cownie, David J. Fellon, Gary L. Alvord,
Terry H. Rust, and James L. Thornton. On December 20, 2016, Dakota
Plains and its affiliated companies filed a voluntary petition
under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the
"Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Minnesota. Pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code, Dakota Plains could not be sued in this litigation.
Accordingly, the Class Representative has not named Dakota Plains
as a defendant in the Action. The proposed partial Settlements, if
approved by the Court, will settle claims of all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Dakota Plains common
stock during the Class Period (i.e., from March 23, 2012 through
and including August 16, 2016) (the "Class") as against the Officer
and Director Defendants and defendant Ryan R. Gilbertson. The
Action is continuing against non-settling defendant Michael L.
Reger. The Class does not include certain persons and entities who
are excluded from the Class by definition.
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS IN THE SETTLEMENTS:
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM BY OCTOBER 25, 2022
This is the only way to be eligible to get a payment from the
Officer and Director Defendants' Settlement. If you are a Class
Member, you will be bound by the Settlements as approved by the
Court and you will give up any Settled Claims that you have against
the Officer and Director Defendants and the other Released Parties,
so, if you remain in the Class, it is in your interest to submit a
Claim Form.
OBJECT TO EITHER OR BOTH OF THE SETTLEMENTS BY SUBMITTING A WRITTEN
OBJECTION SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
If you do not like the proposed settlements with the Officer and
Director Defendants and/or defendant Gilbertson, the proposed Plan
of Allocation or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses, you may write to the Court and explain why you do not
like them.
GO TO THE HEARING ON OCTOBER 4, 2022 AT 4:00 P.M., AND FILE A
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO APPEAR SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED NO LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
Filing a written objection and notice of intention to appear by
September 13, 2022 allows you to speak in Court about the fairness
of the proposed Settlements, the Plan of Allocation, or the request
for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. If you submit a
written objection, you may (but do not have to) attend the hearing
and speak to the Court about your objection.
DO NOTHING.
If you are a member of the Class and you do not submit a Claim Form
by October 25, 2022, you will not be eligible to receive any
payment from the Settlement Fund. You will, however, remain a
member of the Class, which means that you give up your right to sue
about the claims that are resolved by the Settlements and you will
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
PLEASE READ THE NOTICE CAREFULLY. The Notice explains important
rights you may have, including the possible receipt of cash from
the Settlements. If you are a Class Member, your legal rights will
be affected whether or not you act.
DOLGEN CALIFORNIA: Court Tosses Gile Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN GILE, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and
RANDOLPH GALLEGOS, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. DOLGEN CALIFORNIA LLC, a Tennessee
limited liability company, and DOES 1–100, inclusive, Case No.
5:20-cv-01863-MCS-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark C. Scarsi
entered an order denying motion for class certification.
Within 21 days, the parties shall jointly file a proposed schedule
for future dates in this case, setting a trial date no later than
March 14, 2023, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs Brian Gile and Randolph Gallegos initially filed
this wage and hour case in California state court. The Defendant
removed it to federal court in September 2020. Following a
protracted pleadings stage, Plaintiffs filed their Seventh Amended
Complaint (7AC), asserting nine California law claims.
The Court later denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration
of Gallegos's claims, and denied the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings concerning Gile's claims.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p1Ynnz at no extra charge.[CC]
ECL GROUP: Fails to Protect Patients' Health Info, Byers Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNE BYERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ECL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00607 (M.D.N.C., Aug. 2, 2022) is a class action complaint
on behalf of a class of persons impacted by the Defendant's failure
to safeguard, monitor, maintain and protect highly sensitive
Personal Health Information ("PHI") and Personally Identifiable
Information ("PII") (collectively "Sensitive Information").
According to the complaint, starting around December 4, 2021, the
Defendant experienced a cyberattack during which criminal hackers
obtained access to Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive
Information ("Data Breach"). During the Data Breach, criminal
hackers infiltrated and obtained control over Defendant's systems,
specifically, its myCare Identity solution, which is Eye Care
Leaders' medical record platform. Access to this platform provided
the hackers access to the Plaintiff's and the Class's Sensitive
Data. Criminal hackers were fully capable of viewing, copying, and
exfiltrating patients' Sensitive Information, says the suit.
As a result of the Defendant's lax data security, malicious
cybercriminals have accessed the most sensitive details of the
lives and the identities of hundreds of thousands of patients. Due
to Eye Care Leaders' delayed notice of its Data Breach, the exact
number of impacted individuals is unknown, the suit alleges.
ECL GROUP, LLC is a leading Australasian technical services company
providing solutions for fuel systems, electronic security &
facilities management. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Langley, Esq.
HODGE & LANGLEY LAW FIRM
229 Magnolia St.
Spartanburg, SC 29306
Telephone: (864) 585-3873
Email: rlangley@hodgelawfirm.com
- and -
Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
Nathan I. Reiter III, Esq.
THE JOHNSON FIRM
610 President Clinton Ave., Suite 300
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 372-1300
Email: chris@yourattorney.com
nathan@yourattorney.com
- and -
Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq.
Jason P. Johnston, Esq.
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
Rachel K. Tack, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
Email: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
michael.laird@zimmreed.com
rachel.tack@zimmreed.com
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Gainey McKenna Announces Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Enochian Biosciences, Inc. ("Enochian
Biosciences" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ENOB) in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
investors who purchased Enochian Biosciences stock between January
17, 2018 and June 27, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including common stock issued by Enochian Biosciences in a private
placement offering on or about February 16, 2018.
The Complaint allege that Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (i) that co-founder and inventor Gumrukcu was engaged in
a variety of frauds; (ii) that Gumrukcu was not a licensed doctor
anywhere in the world; (iii) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Gumrukcu's purported contributions to the Company lacked a
reasonable basis; (iv) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company had overstated its commercial prospects; (v) that Gumrukcu
had improperly diverted approximately $20 million from Enochian to
entities he owned; and (vi) 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.
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that
Serhat Gumrukcu, the co-founder and inventor of Enochian, had been
arrested in a murder-for-hire conspiracy. On this news, the
Company's shares fell $2.17, or 37%, to close at $3.70 per share on
May 25, 2022, on unusually heavy trading volume.
On June 27, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an article
about Gumrukcu's participation in the murder-for-hire conspiracy,
claiming that Gumrukcu owed Davis over $900,000 after Gumrukcu
coaxed Davis into entering into a fraudulent oil deal with him. The
article further alleged that FBI agents were suspicious that
Gumrukcu "had fabricated his resume and held neither a medical
degree nor a doctoral degree." On this news, the Company's shares
fell $0.73, or 21.9%, to close at $2.60 per share on June 27, 2022,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Enochian
Biosciences should contact the Firm prior to the September 26, 2022
lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J.
McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna &
Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com
or gegleston@gme-law.com.
Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm. [GN]
ENOCHIAN BIOSCIENCES: Robbins Geller Notes of Sept. 26 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of Enochian Biosciences Inc. (NASDAQ: ENOB) securities
between January 17, 2018 and June 27, 2022, inclusive (the "Class
Period") have until September 26, 2022 to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Enochian Biosciences class action lawsuit. The
Enochian Biosciences class action lawsuit – captioned Chow v.
Enochian Biosciences Inc., No. 22-cv-05147 (C.D. Cal.) – charges
Enochian Biosciences Inc. as well as certain of its directors and
officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A
subsequently filed complaint, Manici v. Enochian Biosciences Inc.,
No. 22-cv-05237, is also pending in the Central District of
California.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, please provide your information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-enochian-biosciences-inc-class-action-lawsuit-enob.html
You can also contact attorney Michael Albert of Robbins Geller by
calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at malbert@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Enochian Biosciences is a pre-clinical stage
biotechnology company that purportedly researches and develops
pharmaceutical and biological products for the human treatment of
HIV, HBV, influenza and coronavirus infections, and cancer.
Enochian Biosciences and its top management have credited Serhat
Gumrukcu ("Gumrukcu"), Enochian Biosciences' co-founder, as the
"inventor" of the technology and science behind Enochian
Biosciences' product pipeline. Enochian Biosciences has multiple
consulting and licensing agreements with G-Tech Bio, LLC, a
California limited liability company ("G-Tech"), and G Health
Research Foundation, a not-for-profit entity organized under the
laws of California doing business as Seraph Research Institute
("SRI"), both of which are controlled by Gumrukcu.
The Enochian Biosciences class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) Gumrukcu was not a
licensed doctor and had no verifiable degrees beyond high school;
(ii) accordingly, the scientific and technological underpinnings of
Enochian Biosciences' product pipeline, purportedly invented by
Gumrukcu, were dubious at best; (iii) accordingly, Enochian
Biosciences had significantly overstated the commercial prospects
for Enochian Biosciences' product pipeline; (iv) Enochian
Biociences' senior leadership knew Gumrukcu had a criminal history
that included fraud; (v) accordingly, Enochian Biosciences'
reliance on Gumrukcu, and its consulting and licensing agreements
with G-Tech and SRI, subjected Enochian Biosciences to a heightened
risk of reputational and financial harm, as well as threatened the
integrity of Enochian Biociences' scientific findings; and (vi) as
a result, Enochian Biosciences' public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On May 25, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that
Gumrukcu had been arrested and charged in a murder-for-hire
conspiracy. On this news, Enochian Biosciences' stock price fell by
just under 37%, damaging investors.
Then, on June 1, 2022, Hindenburg Research published a report on
Enochian Biosciences entitled "Miracle Cures and Murder For Hire:
How A Spoon-Bending Turkish Magician Built A $600 Million
Nasdaq-Listed Scam Based On A Lifetime Of Lies," which noted that
the individual in whose murder Gumrukcu was implicated, Gregory
Davis, "was murdered . . . just 19 days before Gumrukcu was
scheduled to appear in court to defend himself against felony fraud
allegations related to a 2016 deal with Davis" and that "[f]ederal
prosecutors argued that the prospective merger deal that eventually
resulted in Enochian [Biosciences] going public served as a key
motive for the murder." The Hindenburg Research report also stated
that "[u]nbeknownst to investors (but known to Enochian
[Biosciences'] senior leadership) Gumrukcu's latest arrest for a
murder conspiracy is simply the most recent in a string of alleged
crimes by Gumrukcu," who "was arrested based on accusations of
falsely posing as a doctor" in his native Turkey in 2012 and "[i]n
February 2017, Gumrukcu was arrested by authorities after the State
of California accused him of a slew of white-collar crimes,
including fraud, identity theft, and check kiting – a total of 14
felonies." On this news, Enochian Biosciences' stock price fell by
more than 28%.
Finally, on June 27, 2022, The Wall Street Journal published an
article about Gumrukcu's participation in the murder-for-hire
conspiracy, claiming that Gumrukcu owed Davis over $900,000 after
Gumrukcu coaxed Davis into entering into a fraudulent oil deal with
him. The article further alleged that FBI agents were suspicious
that Gumrukcu "had fabricated his resume and held neither a medical
degree nor a doctoral degree." On this news, Enochian Biosciences'
stock price fell an additional 21.9%, further damaging investors.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Enochian Biosciences securities during the Class Period to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is generally the
movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by
the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative
class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members
in directing the Enochian Biosciences class action lawsuit. The
lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the
Enochian Biosciences class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon
serving as lead plaintiff of the Enochian Biosciences class action
lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller is one of the world's leading
complex class action firms representing plaintiffs in securities
fraud cases. The Firm is ranked #1 on the 2021 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report for recovering nearly $2 billion for
investors last year alone – more than triple the amount recovered
by any other plaintiffs' firm. With 200 lawyers in 9 offices,
Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in the
world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion –
in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. Please visit the following page
for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
Michael Albert, 800-449-4900
malbert@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
EVERSOURCE ENERGY: Loses Bid for Summary Judgment in Garthwait Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KIMBERLY GARTHWAIT, ET AL., Plaintiffs v. EVERSOURCE
ENERGY COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Case No. 3:20-CV-00902
(JCH) (D. Conn.), Judge Janet C. Hall of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut denies in full the Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment and the parties' respective Motions to
Preclude Expert Testimony.
A class of former and current participants in the Eversource 401(k)
Plan brings the action against Eversource and other defendants
under section 1132(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, section 1001 of title 29, et seq., of the U.S. Code.
Four named Plaintiffs, Kimberly Garthwait, Cumal T. Gray, Kristine
T. Torrance, and Michael J. Hushion, represent a class of all
participants and beneficiaries in the Plan from June 30, 2014 to
the present. They assert their claims against the following
defendants: Eversource; Eversource's Board of Directors; the
Eversource Plan Administrative Committee; the Eversource Investment
Management Committee; and Christine M. Carmody, Robert J. DeAngelo,
Richard J. Morrison, and Michael P. Synan, Gregory B. Butler,
Christine M. Carmody, James J. Judge, Philip J. Lembo, Thomas J.
May, David R. McHale, and John M. Moriera, who were members of the
Board, the Administrative Committee, or the Investment Management
Committee.
Eversource sponsors the Plan, a defined-contribution, individual
account retirement plan for the company's employees. The Plan
served 11,484 participants as of Dec. 31, 2018, and offered 18
investment options.
The parties dispute how well the Plan's investment options
performed over the class period. The disagreements stem, in part,
from fundamental differences as to the appropriate performance
metrics for each fund. The Investment Policy Statement establishes
that, for any given fund:
Historical performance should generally be equal to or greater than
the median return for an appropriate, style-specific benchmark and
peer group over one-, three- and/or five-year periods and/or other
period determined by the Committee in its sole discretion. In their
Statements of Facts, the parties focus primarily on four
investments or suites of investments: The Morgan Stanley Inception
Small Company Growth Fund, the Freedom Funds, the Morgan Stanley
Institutional Emerging Markets Fund, and the Frank Russell Small
Cap Fund.
Plaintiff Garthwait filed this suit against the Defendants on June
30, 2020, as a putative class action. Plaintiffs Gray, Torrance,
and Hushion filed a related action on Aug. 11, 2020, which was
consolidated into this matter. In response, the Defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss. While the Motion to Dismiss was pending, the
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Certify the Class.
In September, 2021, the Court granted the Defendants' Motion as to
of the Plaintiffs' claims related to individual funds, because they
had failed to allege that they owned any particular funds and,
thus, they lacked standing. The plaintiffs timely amended their
Complaint to add allegations that they owned each of the challenged
funds. In the operant Second Amended Complaint, filed Oct. 18,
2021, the Plaintiffs allege three counts: (1) breach of fiduciary
duty; (2) failure to monitor fiduciaries and co-fiduciary breaches;
and (3) in the alternative, liability for knowing breach of trust.
The Court held an Oral Argument on the Motion to Certify the Class
on April 29, 2022. On May 25, 2022, it granted in part the Motion
to Certify the Class, certifying the following class: Participants
and beneficiaries in the Plan at any time on or after June 30,
2014, to the present, including any beneficiary of a deceased
person who was a participant in the Plan at any time during the
Class Period. The class is certified only as to the Plaintiffs'
claims for retrospective relief.
Now pending before the Court is the Defendants' Motion for Summary
Judgment. Both parties have also filed Motions to Preclude expert
testimony, seeking to disqualify the following witnesses: The
Plaintiffs' expert Michael Geist; the Defendants' expert Kathleen
Mann; and the Defendants' expert Dr. Russell Wermers.
The parties have proffered the following six experts:
1. Plaintiffs' Expert Michael Geist: opining as to the conduct
of fiduciaries and the reasonableness of fees. The Defendants argue
that Geist failed to use a reliable or discernable methodology to
determine whether the Plan paid excessive recordkeeping and
administration fees.
2. Plaintiffs' Expert Gerald W. Buetow: opining as to
damages.
3. Plaintiffs' Expert Roger L. Levy: opining as to whether the
defendants' conduct conformed to the applicable standard of care.
4. Defendants' Expert Dr. Russell Wermers: opining as to the
reasonableness of including challenged funds in the investment
lineup and responding to Buetow's opinions. See Wermers Report. The
Plaintiffs seek to preclude Dr. Wermer's opinions and testimony in
its entirety. Their Motion primarily addresses the reliability and
relevance of Dr. Wermers' opinion that the challenged funds were
economically reasonable investments.
5. Defendants' Expert Kathleen Mann: opining as to whether the
Defendants' conduct conformed to the applicable standard of care
and responding to Levy's opinions. The Plaintiffs contend that
unreliable methodology undercuts Mann's opinions that the the
defendants adhered to the applicable standard of care and that the
Plan's fee monitoring was reasonable. They
6. Defendants' Expert Steve Gissiner: opining as to the
reasonableness of the Plan's fees and responding to Geist's
opinions.
The Plaintiffs have moved to preclude a number of Mann's and
Wermers' opinions, while the Defendants have moved to preclude
several of Geist's opinions.
AS to Mann's opinions, Judge Hall finds that Mann's opinions result
from her applying her specialized knowledge and experience as an
investment professional to analyze these meeting notes, materials,
and the other record evidence she cites in her Report. Mann's
opinion linking the Defendants' actions to the fee reduction is not
so speculative as to be inadmissible. Moreover, to the extent that
the Plaintiffs argue that Mann's opinion is unsupported by the
record evidence, this goes to the weight, not the admissibility of
her opinion. For these reasons, their Motion to Preclude Mann's
opinions is denied in full.
As to Dr. Wermers' testimony, Judge Hall holds that he relied on
sufficient facts and data to reach his opinion regarding the
reasonableness of the Plan's investment options. To the extent that
Dr. Wermers' failure to directly reference the Investment Policy
Statement weakens his testimony, the Plaintiffs may challenge it
through "vigorous cross examination, presentation of contrary
evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof." And,
because his testimony "makes the existence of a fact that is of
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable," it is relevant to the trier of fact and does not
warrant preclusion. Judge Hall denies the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Preclude Wermers in full.
Regarding Geist's opinion, Judge Hall finds that he instead relied
on the publicly available data to construct a survey, for which he
details his methodology and the data upon which he relied. The
Defendants are free to cross examine Geist as to his use of a
survey rather than a competitive bidding process, but the Court
does not preclude Geist's testimony on this ground. Geist's use of
publicly available data also does not render his testimony
unreliable. To the extent that the Defendants challenge the
accuracy of the data, they may draw out any inconsistencies on
cross examination. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants'
Motion to Preclude Geist is denied in full.
With respect to the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
all of the Plaintiffs' claims, because genuine issues of material
fact remain as to each of the Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Hall denies
the Defendants' Motion in full. He finds that (i) genuine issues of
material fact exist as to whether the fiduciaries acted "solely in
the interest of the participants (Count One); (ii) summary judgment
as to Count Two would be inappropriate and is denied because she
has denied summary judgment as to the Plaintiffs' underlying breach
of duty claim; and (iii) where issues of material fact abound, the
Court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the fact
finder.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Ruling is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2w2um92j from Leagle.com.
FORD MOTOR: Imhoff Sues Over Defective Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Imhoff, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-01019-MMA-MSB (S.D. Cal.,
July 13, 2022) is brought against the Defendant for breach of
implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust
enrichment or quasi-contract, negligence, and violations of the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, California's False Advertising
Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair
Competition Law.
According to the complaint, Ford advertises its 2021 Ford
Expedition vehicles as "designed with you and your family in mind,"
and its 2021 Lincoln Navigator as "Every aspect of the Navigator
experience is designed with your serenity in mind." In reality,
these vehicles have a serious risk of erupting in flames, posing a
grave threat of both severe property damage and physical harm -- or
even death -- to drivers and passengers, prompting Ford to issue
Recall No. 22S36, and submit a recall to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration on May 17, 2022. In the course of
normal use, Class Vehicles may erupt in fire under the hood. The
risk of fire is present regardless of whether the ignition is
turned on or off. The said defect is inherent in each Class Vehicle
and was present at the time of sale, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class Members purchased or leased vehicles that,
at the time of purchase or lease, were of a lesser standard and
quality than represented and were not fit for the ordinary purpose
of providing safe transportation, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff
and Class Members would have paid less for their vehicles had they
known of the defect. They have suffered damages in that they lost
the benefit of their bargain, overpaid for their Class Vehicles,
suffered diminution in value of their Class Vehicles, loss of use
of their Class Vehicles, as well as incurred out-of-pocket expenses
related to loss of use of the Class Vehicles, adds the suit.
Ford Motor Company is an American multinational automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
Michael J. Morphew, Esq.
CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT
& PENFIELD, LLP
110 Laurel Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 238-1811
Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
gmb@cglaw.com
jrobinson@cglaw.com
camille@cglaw.com
mmorphew@cglaw.com
- and -
Todd A. Walburg, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 660
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 272-8000
Facsimile: (510) 463-0291
E-mail: twalburg@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
Jonathan D. Boggs, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
jboggs@baileyglasser.com
GEO GROUP: Gomez Sues Over Detained Immigrants' Forced Labor
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE RUBEN HERNANDEZ GOMEZ; SALESH PRASAD; GUILLERMO MEDINA REYES;
EDGAR SANCHEZ; ADAN CASTILLO MERINO; IVAN OLIVA SIERRA; FIDEL
GARCIA, ISAAC CARDONA HERNANDEZ, and PEDRO JESUS FIGUEROA PADILLA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00868-BAK (E.D. Cal., July 13, 2022) arises from systematic
and unlawful wage theft, unjust enrichment, and forced labor at two
of Defendant GEO Group, Inc.'s civil immigration detention
facilities in violation of the California Labor Code, the
California Unfair Competition Law, and the California Trafficking
Victims Protection Act.
GEO is a multibillion-dollar corporation that owns and operates
detention facilities around the world. GEO operates at least
fourteen civil immigration detention centers in the United States.
Although it is contractually required to provide all essential
detention services at the facilities, GEO uses the free or
nearly-free labor of civilly detained immigrants to perform those
services to maximize profits, says the suit.
The complaint further asserts that GEO maintains a corporate policy
and uniform practice at the facilities of depriving detained
individuals of necessary cleaning services, personal hygiene
supplies, and other services and items to ensure a ready supply of
available labor needed to operate the facilities. Detained people
are forced to submit to GEO's $1 per day scheme, the so-called
"Voluntary" Activities Program, to buy the basic necessities --
including food, water, and hygiene products -- that GEO
systematically deprives them of.
Allegedly, forced and underpaid labor is part of GEO's business
model, notes the complaint. GEO significantly reduces its labor
costs and expenses, and increases its already vast profits, by
intentionally and unlawfully forcing and coercing detained
immigrants to perform labor at subminimum wages, or without pay at
all, the complaint alleges.
The Plaintiffs are/were detained workers performing basic and
necessary tasks, such as cleaning shared showers, sinks, and
toilets; sweeping, mopping, and waxing floors; and cleaning
surfaces like walls, dining and other tables, chairs, windows, and
handrails. Others work as painters in the facilities or assist
detainees with disabilities to perform their daily activities.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gay C. Grunfeld, Esq.
Ernest Galvan, Esq.
Michael Freedman, Esq.
Jessica Winter, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
101 Mission Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-1738
Telephone: (415) 433-6830
Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
E-mail: egalvan@rbgg.com
mfreedman@rbgg.com
jwinter@rbgg.com
- and -
Priya Arvind Patel, Esq.
CENTRO LEGAL DE LA RAZA
3400 East 12th Street
Oakland, CA 94601-3402
Telephone: (510) 437-1554
E-mail: ppatel@centrolegal.org
- and -
Lisa V. Knox, Esq.
CALIFORNIA COLLABORATIVE FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94612-4700
Telephone: (510) 230-6746
E-mail: lisa@ccijustice.org
GILEAD SCIENCES: Parties Stipulate to Seal Class Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER STALEY, et al., v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-02573-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation and proposed order
regarding administrative motions to seal in connection with class
certification.
Gilead Sciences is an American biopharmaceutical company
headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on
researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of
HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A7H9v3 at no extra charge.[CC]
Interim Co-Lead Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs
Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
Rrichard Brunell, Esq.
Nicholas William Shadowen, Esq.
Tina Joann Miranda, Esq.
Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
1135 W. 6th Street, Suite 125
Austin, TX 78703
Telephone: (855) 344-3298
E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
rbrunell@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
nshadowen@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
tmiranda@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
- and -
Daralyn J. Durie, Esq.
Mark A. Lemley, Esq.
David McGowan, Esq.
Eugene Novikov, Esq.
Aditya V. Kamdar, Esq.
Allyson R. Bennett, Esq.
W. Henry Huttinger, Esq.
DURIE TANGRI LLP
217 Leidesdorff Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 362-6666
E-mail: ddurie@durietangri.com
mlemley@durietangri.com
dmcgowan@durietangri.com
enovikov@durietangri.com
akamdar@durietangri.com
abennett@durietangri.com
hhuttinger@durietangri.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
Gregory T. Arnold, Esq.
Abbye R. K. Ognibene, Esq.
Lauren G. Barnes, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Telephone: (617) 482-3700
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tom@hbsslaw.com
grega@hbsslaw.com
abbyeo@hbsslaw.com
lauren@hbsslaw.com
The Counsel for End-Payor Plaintiffs, are:
Joseph J. Meltzer, Esq.
Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
Donna S. Moffa, Esq.
Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
tziegler@ktmc.com
dmoffa@ktmc.com
jjacobson@ktmc.com
- and -
Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF P.C.
2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
E-mail: jkodroff@srkattorneys.com
dzinser@srkattorneys.com
- and -
Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1625 North Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
Telephone: (954) 515-0123
E-mail: jagoldstein@millershah.com
nfinkelman@millershah.com
- and -
Paul E. Slater, Esq.
John P. Bjork, Esq.
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Alberto Rodriguez, Esq.
David P. Germaine, Esq.
SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
jbjork@sperling-law.com
ekelly@sperling-law.com
arodriguez@sperling-law.com
dgermaine@sperling-law.com
- and -
Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: hmsilton@locklaw.com
khriebel@locklaw.com
jnservais@locklaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq.
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 692-0772
E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com
jkl@pritzkerlevine.com
bc@pritzkerlevine.com
- and -
Kevin F. Ruf, Esq.
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
E-mail: kruf@glancylaw.com
lglancy@glancylaw.com
lalbert@glancylaw.com
bbrooks@glancylaw.com
- and -
Linda P. Nnussbaum, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
Peter E. Moran, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
bcohen@nussbaumpc.com
pmoran@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
Dan Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
The Interim Liaison Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
Patrick B. Clayton, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
3708 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94118
Telephone: (415) 751-4193
Facsimile: (415) 788-0706
E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
pbc@scarpullalaw.com
The Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
NASTLAW LLC
1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
Telephone: (215) 923-9300
Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM
1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: (501) 952-8558
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
The Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, are:
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Seth R. Gassman, Esq.
Brent William Landau, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th St. NW, Suite 300
Washington DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
mlehmann@hausfeld.com
bsweeney@hausfeld.com
sgassman@hausfeld.com
blandau@hausfeld.com
The Counsel for the Defendants Gilead Sciences, Inc., Gilead
Holdings, LLC, Gilead Sciences, LLC, and Gilead Sciences Ireland
UC, are:
Heather M. Burke, Esq.
Jeremy K. Ostrander, Esq.
Christopher M. Curran, Esq.
Peter J. Carney, Esq.
Heather K. McDevitt, Esq.
Bryan D. Gant, Esq.
Kristen O’Shaughnessy, Esq.
Michael E. Hamburger, Esq.
Raj S. Gandesha, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
3000 El Camino Real
2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
Palo Alto, CA 94306-2109
Telephone: (650) 213-0300
Facsimile: (650) 213-8158
E-mail: hburke@whitecase.com
jostrander@whitecase.com
ccurran@whitecase.com
pcarney@whitecase.com
hmcdevitt@whitecase.com
bgant@whitecase.com
kristen.oshaughnessy@whitecase.com
mhamburger@whitecase.com
rgandesha@whitecase.com
The Counsel for the Defendants Janssen R&D Ireland, Janssen
Products, LP and Johnson & Johnson, are:
Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
Paul H. Saint-Antoine, Esq.
Joanne C. Lewers, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
E-mail: paul.riehle@faegredrinker.com
paul.saint-antoine@faegredrinker.com
joanne.lewers@faegredrinker.com
The Attorneys for the Defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
are:
Christopher T. Holding, Esq.
Brian T. Burgess, Esq.
Molly R. Grammel, Esq.
Ashley Moore Drake, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
E-mail: CHolding@goodwinlaw.com
BBurgess@goodwinlaw.com
MGrammel@goodwinlaw.com
AMDrake@goodwinlaw.com
GKN DRIVELINE: Bid to Amend Certified Class Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAMES MEBANE and ANGELA
WORSHAM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. GKN DRIVELINE NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
1:18-cv-00892-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs
entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion to amend previously
certified class or, in the alternative, to Certify Class Claims, is
granted in part and denied in part.
-- It is granted with respect to claims that employees were
not paid for ordinary, or emergency work conducted during
mealtimes due to the Defendant's Automatic Deduction
Policy as outlined in this Memorandum Opinion.
-- It is denied with respect to all other claims.
The Court further entered an Order that Plaintiffs shall submit
within 15 days of this Order a proposed Notice to be sent to
members of the newly certified Automatic Deduction class that
complies with Rule 23(c)(2)(B). Defendant may, but need not, submit
a response to such proposed Notice within ten days of being served
therewith.
The Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is denied without
prejudice. The Plaintiffs may refile their motion within
thirty days of this Order, the Court says.
The Defendant operates three manufacturing facilities in North
Carolina. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as non-exempt, hourly
employees until April 2018. They filed this suit on their own
behalf and on behalf of similarly situated employees on October 23,
2018, alleging that the Defendant failed to pay its employees for
all hours worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA").
Among other charges, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant did
not compensate employees for work performed before shifts began or
after shifts ended due to its "Rounding Policy," even though
employees notified Defendant of actual hours worked by clocking in
and out.
On November 5, 2020, this Court conditionally certified Plaintiffs'
FLSA claims and certified the following NCWHA class:
"Individuals who were, are, or will be employed at Defendant
GKN's North Carolina facilities on the manufacturing floor in
non-managerial positions, were not compensated all promised,
earned, and accrued wages due to the Defendant's rounding
policy, including, but not limited to, compensation for all
hours worked up to 40 in a week and for hours worked above 40
in a week within two years prior to the commencement of this
action, through the present.
On June 23, 2021, Plaintiffs requested leave to file a Fourth
Amended Complaint ("FAC") to add allegations that class members
were also not compensated when they worked during scheduled lunch
breaks due to Defendant's "Automatic Deduction Policy."
GKN manufactures automotive parts. The Company offers light
vehicles, agricultural and construction equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Pbw4gT at no extra charge.[CC]
GODADDY.COM LLC: 11th Circuit Vacates TPCA Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Burr & Forman wrote on JDSupra that in Drazen v. GoDaddy.com, LLC,
No. 21-10199 (11th Cir. July 27, 2022), the Eleventh Circuit
vacated a TCPA class settlement for lack of standing, suggesting
reconsideration of Glasser v. Hilton Grand Vacations Co.
Plaintiffs' Claims and Allegations
Plaintiff's claims, and those advanced in two separately filed
class action lawsuits alleging violation of the TCPA by making
unsolicited promotional/marketing communications, were consolidated
after which time the Parties entered into settlement negotiations.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs submitted a proposed class settlement
agreement defining the class as: All persons within the United
States who received a call or text message to his or her cellular
telephone from the Defendant from November 4, 2014 through December
31, 2016, including certain exclusions.
The District Court's Consideration of the Proposed Settlement
Class
The proposed settlement required that the Defendant make $35
million available for approved claims and settlement costs. Class
members could, subject to pro rata reduction in the event that too
many class members opted into the class, either receive $35 in cash
or a $150 voucher from the Defendant. Class counsel agreed to ask
for no more than 30 percent in attorneys' fees plus costs and
expenses, and asked the district court to award each named
plaintiff $5,000.
Because the class definition included individuals who received only
one text message from the Defendant, the district court requested
briefing regarding the implications of Salcedo v. Hannah, 936 F.3d
1162, 1168 (11th Cir. 2019), wherein the Court of Appeals held that
receipt of a single unwanted text message was insufficiently
concrete injury to give rise to Article III standing. In their
briefing, the Parties proposed a new class definition consisting
of: All persons within the United States to whom, from November 4,
2014 through December 31, 2016, the Defendant placed a voice or
text message call to their cellular telephone pursuant to an
outbound campaign facilitated by the web-based software application
used by 3Seventy, Inc., or the software programs and platforms that
comprise the Cisco Unified Communications Manager, again with
certain exclusions.
Citing Cordoba v. DIRECTV, LLC, 942 F. 3d 1259, 1273 (11th Cir.
2019), the district court held that only named plaintiffs need have
standing, and the standing issue could be resolved by removing one
of the three named Plaintiffs who received a single text message
from the Defendant. As to "absent class members," who may have
only received a single text message, the district court noted that
these individuals would only make up about seven percent of the
class based on the Defendant's representations, and "even though
some of the included class members would not have a viable claim in
the Eleventh Circuit, they do have a viable claim in their
respective Circuit [because of a circuit split]. Thus, [Defendant]
is entitled to settle those claims in this class action although
this Court would find them meritless had they been brought
individually in the Eleventh Circuit."
Objection to Class Settlement and Final Order
After certifying the class for settlement purposes, and considering
Plaintiffs' counsels' request for an award of attorneys' fees
totaling 30 percent of the settlement fund and costs, the district
court reduced the attorneys' fee award to 25 percent of the fund,
concluding that "the issues in this case were not complex" and the
"average benchmark" was 25%." Thereafter, an objection to the
settlement was lodged, contending, among other things, that the
settlement was a "coupon" settlement under the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA"), requiring heightened scrutiny of the
attorneys' fee award. In response, the district court amended its
attorneys' fee order to make its previous awards subject to final
evaluation and review of any objections and at the final approval
hearing. After briefing from all Parties, the district court
entered its final order, certifying the settlement class, while
reducing the attorneys' fee award to 20 percent, and separately
vacating $5,000 awards to the named Plaintiffs based on Johnson v.
NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F. 3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020).
The Eleventh Circuit's Ruling
Noting that the Parties did not brief the issue of subject matter
jurisdiction, apparently assuming that the class definition
satisfied Article III standing muster, the Court held that such
jurisdiction was lacking, vacating final settlement approval, and
remanding the case to allow the Parties an opportunity to revise
the class definition. Citing the United States Supreme Court case
Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041 (2019), the Court noted that Article
III's standing requirements extend to court approval of proposed
class action settlements. And, thus, even at the settlement stage
of a class action, courts must assure themselves that they have
Article III standing. The Court also cited TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190 (2021) for the propositions that: (1) To
satisfy the concrete injury requirement for standing, a plaintiff
alleging a statutory violation must demonstrate that history and
the judgment of Congress support a conclusion that there is Article
III standing; and (2) Every class member must have Article III
standing in order to recover individual damages.
Noting that the district court's certification of the settlement
class was issued before, and without the benefit of TransUnion,
supra., the Circuit Court concluded that "[i] f every plaintiff
within the class definition in the class action in TransUnion had
to have Article III standing to recover damages after trial,
logically so too must be the case with a court-approved class
action settlement." The Court also rejected the district court's
reliance on In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F. 3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014)
for the proposition that absent class members need not have Article
III standing in the Eleventh Circuit to be part of a nationwide
class settlement because they may have standing in another circuit,
finding that, at most, In re Deepwater Horizon stands for the
proposition that absent class members need not "'prove their claims
prior to settlement under Rule 23(e),'" and that "[a]ny class
definition that includes members who would never have standing
under our precedent is a class definition that cannot stand."
The Court then pondered the more difficult question of whether
absent class members have standing based on receipt of a single
cell phone call. Pointing to its previous decision in Glasser v.
Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC, 948 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2020)
that "receipt of more than one unwanted telemarketing call" is
sufficient to meet the "concrete injury" requirement for Article
III standing, the Court recognized that the differences between
Glasser, Cordoba and the present case "may present the need to
reexamine Glasser in the future because it "may affect both the
injury-in-fact requirement and the causation analysis." Adding that
in Glaser, the Court did not decide whether a single phone call to
a cell phone was a concrete injury for Article III standing
purposes, the Court held that: "Because we have not received
briefing on whether a single cellphone call is sufficient to meet
the concrete injury requirement for Article III standing and
because TransUnion has clarified that courts must look to history
to find a common-law analogue for statutory harms, we think the
best course is to vacate the class certification and settlement and
remand in order to give the parties an opportunity to redefine the
class with the benefit of TransUnion and its common-law analogue
analysis."
A copy of the opinion can be accessed by clicking
https://www.burr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Case-_-Drazen-v-GoDaddy.pdf
[GN]
GOODYEAR TIRE: Illegally Wiretaps Website, Byars Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARISHA BYARS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO., Defendant,
Case No. 5:22-cv-01358 (C.D Cal., Aug. 1, 2022) is an action
against the Defendant for its illegal wiretapping of all
communications with the Defendant's website, www.goodyear.com (the
"Website").
According to the complaint, unknown to visitors to the Website, the
Defendant has secretly deployed "keystroke monitoring" software
that Defendant uses to surreptitiously intercept, monitor, and
record the communications, including keystrokes and mouse clicks,
of all visitors to its Website. The Defendant neither informs
visitors nor seeks their express or implied consent prior to this
wiretapping, says the suit.
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY develops, distributes, and sells
tires. The Company manufactures and markets rubber and
rubber-related chemicals and provides automotive repair services.
Goodyear also retreads truck, aircraft, and heavy equipment tires.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company serves customers in the United
States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation
4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 706-6464
Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
GRAND CANYON: Bid for Consolidation Tossed in Little Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carson Little v. Grand
Canyon University, Case No. 2:20-cv-01007-SMB (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Susan M. Brnovich entered an order denying the Plaintiffs
Hannibal-Fisher and Tran's Motion to Consolidate.
The Court finds that consolidation is inappropriate. With
Plaintiffs Hannibal-Fisher and Tran no longer pursuing claims that
have been certified in Little, their only remaining claims are for
unjust enrichment and money had and received, and as the Court
explained when ruling on Plaintiff Little's Motion for Class
Certification, unjust enrichment claims are unsuitable for class
certification. It is unclear whether a money had and received claim
-- which is also an equitable claim -- could be certified. Thus, it
is unclear whether Plaintiffs Hannibal-Fisher and Tran will be able
to certify their class.
The Plaintiff Little initially filed his case before this Court on
April 24, 2020, seeking a partial refund for the costs of room and
board and fees for the Spring 2020 COVID-19-interupted semester at
GCU. On January 28, 2022, the Court granted in part Plaintiff
Little's Amended Motion for Class Certification.
The Order certified Plaintiff Little's class for a claim of breach
of contract for GCU's refusal to refund partial costs of room and
board and partial costs of fees for the Spring 2020 semester, but
denied certification for Plaintiff Little's unjust enrichment
claims.
The Court certified the following class:
"All students enrolled in on-campus classes at Grand Canyon
University for the Spring of 2020 semester who were charged
and paid fees for services, facilities, resources,
activities, and/or events that were not provided, in whole or
in part, during the Spring 2020 semester."
The Plaintiffs Hannibal-Fisher and Tran also brought their action
seeking to represent a 9 class related to GCU's campus-closure as a
result of the COVID-19 pandemic during 10 2020 semester. Unlike in
the Little action, Plaintiffs Hannibal-Fisher and Tran brought a
claim for breach of contract for GCU's failure to disperse partial
refunds for tuition in addition to bringing a claim for breach of
contract for GCU's failure to grant a partial refund for housing
costs and fees. They also brought claims for unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, and accounting.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A7IuC5 at no extra charge.[CC]
HANNAFORD BROS: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDITH PRINZO, on behalf
of herself and all other employees similarly situated, v.
HANNAFORD BROS. CO., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11901-WGY (D. Mass.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its instant
motion for extension of time to submit its opposition to
plaintiff's motion for class certification by 21 days, up to and
including September 2, 2022.
On July 29, 2022, the Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class
Certification.
Hannaford's presently set deadline to oppose the Motion for Class
Certification is August 12, 2022.
Key members of Hannaford's legal team are in trial through at least
August 11, 2022, with immediate obligations relating to the same
which may extend into the following weeks.
At the same time, Hannaford's lead counsel is traveling and out of
the office from August 6, 2022 through August 13, 2022.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3p4hj4T at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Christopher M. Pardo, Esq.
Elizabeth L. Sherwood, Esq.
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
60 State Street, Suite 2400
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 648-2800
Facsimile: (617) 433-5022
E-mail: cpardo@HuntonAK.com
esherwood@HuntonAK.com
- and -
Ryan A. Glasgow, Esq.
rglasgow@HuntonAK.com
HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP
Riverfront Plaza, East Tower
951 East Byrd Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: (804) 788-8791
Facsimile: (804) 343-4897
HENRY SCHEIN: $35MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
CITY OF HOLLYWOOD POLICE OFFICERS'
Plaintiffs,
v. HENRY SCHEIN, INC.,COVETRUS, INC.,
Defendants
No. 2:19-cv-5530 (GRB)(RLM)
CLASS ACTION
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired Covetrus, Inc. ("Covetrus" or the "Company") common stock
during the period from February 8, 2019, through August 12, 2019,
inclusive, (the "Settlement Class Period") and were allegedly
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
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 Eastern District of New York, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for
settlement purposes only on behalf of the Settlement Class, except
for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement
Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Court-Appointed Lead Plaintiffs, City of
Hollywood Police Officers' Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers, on behalf of
themselves and the Court-certified Settlement Class in the
above-captioned securities class action (the "Action"), have
reached a proposed settlement for $35,000,000.00 (the
"Settlement"), that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all
claims in the Action.
A hearing will be held on October 25, 2022, at 2:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Roanne L. Mann at the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 13C-S, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY 11201. The
hearing will determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should
be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the Releases specified and described in the Amended Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated June 17, 2022 (and in the Notice),
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Covetrus
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173059,
Milwaukee, WI 53217, by telephone at (877) 354-3780, or by email at
info@covetrussecuritieslitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and
Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by
the Claims Administrator, www.CovetrusSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be potentially
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form online at the Settlement website or by
mail. The Claim Form must be submitted online through the case
website, www.CovetrusSecuritiesLitigation.com, or postmarked no
later than December 3, 2022. If you are a Settlement Class Member
and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later thanOctober 4, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
byOctober 4, 2022, and served to representatives of Lead Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
October 4, 2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.
Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Covetrus,
Benjamin Shaw, or Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Or you may visit
www.CovetrusSecuritiesLitigation.com or call toll-free at (877)
354-3780.
Requests for the Notice or Claim Form should be made to:
Covetrus Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173059
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 354-3780
www.CovetrusSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@covetrussecuritieslitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or Claim Form, may be
made to the Claims Administrator or to Lead Counsel:
Covetrus Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173059
Milwaukee, WI 53217
(877) 354-3780
www.CovetrusSecuritiesLitigation.com
info@covetrussecuritieslitigation.com
or
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
7777 Glades Rd., Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
(561) 206-6708
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
Dated: July 15, 2022
By Order of the Court
United States District Court
Eastern District of New York
HOME DEPOT: Barely Dodges TPCA Class Action Suit in Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brittany A. Andres, an associate at the Troutman Firm, wrote in the
National Law Review that before the Court was Defendant Home Depot,
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Compel Arbitration, or, in
the Alternative, to Dismiss. For the Court's reasons, Home Depot's
Motion to Dismiss was denied as moot and Home Depot's Motion to
Compel Arbitration, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss was granted
in part and denied in part. Let's break this down.
Plaintiff Melissa Carson visited ProReferral.com seeking a
professional repairman to help with a door jamb. Proferral.com is
owned and operated by Red Beacon, Inc. (non-party), which is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Home Depot.
On July 8, 2021, Carson submitted 3 requests on Pro Referral and
she twice checked a box stating: "Get Text updates about my service
request." The same day, Pro Referral sent her a text message
matching her project with a construction company, to which she
responded "Stop" to unsubscribe from future text messages. Yet, the
text messages did not stop. Carson alleges she received 4 more text
messages and replied "Stop" to most of those messages. (We all know
what to expect from here).
Prior to enrolling her project in Pro Referral, Carson had to
accept Pro Referrals Terms of Service by clicking the "Submit My
Request" button. The Terms of Service were available to view
through a hyperlink posted above the button. Included in the Terms
of Service was an arbitration provision that stated,
"You agree that Pro Referral may elect, in its sole discretion, to
submit or require You to submit any dispute, complaint, or demand
("Claim") relating to or concerning in any way the Agreement or use
of the Website to binding arbitration within a reasonable time
after the claim arises."
Now, Carson files a Complaint against Home Depot alleging Home
Depot failed to: (1) implement a written policy for maintaining a
do-not-call list; (2) train its personnel on the existence and use
of the do-not-call-list; (3) maintain a do-not-call list; and (4)
honor do-not-call requests from consumers.
Home Depot moved to submit the case to arbitration pursuant to Pro
Referral's Terms of Service, or in the alternative, to dismiss it
altogether for failure to state a claim.
First, Carson argues that Home Depot has no right to compel
arbitration because the sole party she agreed to arbitrate with was
Red Beacon (a non party), not Home Depot. Second, she argues that
her cause of action does not arise from her use of the Pro Referral
website and thus falls outside the scope of the arbitration clause.
Find this persuasive?
As to her first argument, just because a party is not named
explicitly in the arbitration clause does not mean they may not
have rights to enforce it. Taken here, Home Depot is not a named
party to the Terms of Service that Carson agreed to on Pro
Referral. However, a doctrine entitled equitable estoppel may allow
Home Depot to enforce it.
Equitable estoppel allows nonsignatories to invoke an arbitration
clause against a signatory under limited circumstances. One
circumstance occurs "when the signatory [i.e., the Plaintiff] to
the contract containing the arbitration clause raises allegations
of substantially independent and concerted misconduct by both the
nonsignatory [i.e., Home Depot] and one or more of the signatories
to the contract [i.e., Red Beacon].
Here, the Court found that Carson cannot avoid the arbitration
clause by omitting the signatory, Red Beacon from this case and the
attributed its acts and omission to a nonsignatory defendant, Home
Depot. Carson alleges Pro Referral sent the text messages and as
explained above, Pro Referral is owned and operated by Red Beacon,
not Home Depot.
However, the Court's analysis did not stop there. The equitable
doctrine is subject to a further limitation:
"A plaintiff's allegations of collusive behavior between the
signatory and nonsignatory parties to the contract do not
automatically compel a court to order arbitration of all of the
plaintiff's claims against the nonsignatory defendant; rather, such
allegations support an application of estoppel only when they
"establish that the claims against the nonsignatory are intimately
founded in and intertwined with the obligations imposed by the
contract containing the arbitration clause."
The purpose of equitable estoppel is to prevent a plaintiff from
essentially "trying to have its cake and eat it too", as the Court
put it. In other words, the doctrine is to prevent a plaintiff from
relying on the contract when it works to his advantage and
repudiating it when it works to his disadvantage.
The Court found that because Carson is not attempting to hold Home
Depot to any part of the Terms of Service, her claim is NOT
"intimately founded in" or "intertwined with" the contract. For
this reason, the Court concluded that Home Depot cannot enforce the
Terms of Service's arbitration clause through equitable estoppel.
At the same time, Carson did not plausibly allege that Home Depot
sent any of the text messages to her and did not assert an
alternate theory of liability as to Home Depot (vicarious liability
could have been one). Consequently, the Court found the Complaint
did not state a viable claim for relief and should be dismissed
with prejudice.
So, although Home Depot could not enforce the arbitration clause
and move the case to arbitration, they were able to get the case
dismissed with prejudice. And that's a win for Home Depot! [GN]
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Child Labor Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Aron of Courthouse News Service reports that Hyundai Motor
Company was hit with a federal class action lawsuit, alleging that
a subsidiary of the South Korean-based car maker, SMART Alabama,
"has used illegal child labor" to make auto parts at a plant in
Montgomery, Alabama.
The lawsuit comes a week after the news outlet Reuters published a
damning investigation into the parts manufacturer, which found that
underage workers, "in some cases as young as 12, have recently
worked at the metal stamping plant operated by SMART Alabama."
SMART has denied knowingly employing underage workers, saying that
it relies on temp agencies to fill certain jobs. The story cited
three siblings, ages 15, 14 and 12, all Guatemalan migrants, who
were working at the plant instead of going to school. The article
also states "there were around 50 underage workers between the
different plant shifts," according to a former adult employee of
the plant.
The lawsuit was filed by "current and former owners and lessees of
Hyundai vehicles," including a named plaintiff, Lea Reis. The
plaintiffs allege they were harmed by Hyundai concealing and not
informing them of the use of child labor while making their cars.
"That the child labor is utilized in Defendants' supply chain for
the manufacture of Class Vehicles is material to consumers not
wishing to support such labor with their purchasing power," the
complaint reads. "In the course of marketing and selling Class
Vehicles, however, Defendants materially omit and fail to disclose
that Class Vehicles are manufactured using child labor."
A Hyundai spokesman did not immediately return an email requesting
comment for this story. Neither did the plainitffs' attorney,
Joseph Sauder.
A spokesperson for the Alabama Department of Labor told Reuters
that it would be "coordinating with the U.S. Department of labor
and other agencies to investigate" the child labor allegations.
[GN]
IC SYSTEM: Weber Seeks to Certify Class in FDCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gavriel Weber,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
I.C. SYSTEM INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02176-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
1. certifying the proposed Class as it readily meets the
requirements of Rule 23(a):
"All individuals with addresses in the State of New York
to whom the Defendant sent a collection letter between the
dates of March 16, 2021 and April 6, 2022, attempting to
collect a debt, for a closed Verizon account, providing an
amount owed, based on a particular date range between a
date certain and "today", without dating the collection
letter;"
2. appointing Tamir Saland as Class Counsel for the proposed
Class; and
3. appointign Gavriel Weber as Class Representative for the
proposed Class.
This is a text book class action case where Defendant engaged in
the same uniform conduct for each member of the Class in violation
of 15 U.S.C. section l692d, l692e, l692f, l692g of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The conduct at issue concerns the Defendant's deceptive debt
collection practice of sending dunning letters related to closed
Verizon accounts providing for an amount owed based on uncertain
dates. Each member of the proposed class is a New York debtor who
allegedly owes Verizon money for a closed account.
Discovery has uncovered that 3,962 consumers have been subjected
to this exact conduct through form template letters used by
Defendant in attempt to collect closed Verizon accounts. The
Plaintiff files this Motion for Class Certification, asking this
Court to certify the Class described in order to recover actual and
statutory damages stemming from Defendant's violations of the
FDCPA, the Plaintiff contends.
IC System is an Accounts Receivable Management provider and one of
the largest collection companies in North America.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated Aug. 2,
2022 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PadHJl
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tamir Saland, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Ste. 620
Hackensack, NJ, 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 122
E-mail: tsaland@SteinSaksLegal.com
IOWA BARNSTORMERS: $1-Mil. Settlement Reached in Sex Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trish Mehaffey, writing for The Gazette, reports that a federal
class-action lawsuit brought by youth basketball players who were
potential sex abuse victims of former Iowa Barnstormers basketball
coach Greg Stephen reached a settlement Friday that will establish
a fund of over a $1 million for the athletes.
Guy Cook, lead attorney for an unnamed former Barnstormers
Basketball of Iowa player who filed the suit in 2020, said the fund
will be established for select former youth athletes affiliated
with the Barnstormers and coached by "disgraced" Stephen from 2005
through 2018, and "fell victim to Stephen's illicit acts of
secretly procuring nude images of players."
The settlement is pending court approval. The trial was set to
start in U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Iowa in
Davenport.
Stephen, 44, of Monticello, was sentenced in 2019 to 180 years in
federal prison. He pleaded guilty to five counts of sexual
exploitation of a child and one count each of possession of child
pornography and transportation of child pornography.
During the investigation, authorities found videos on a USB device
taken by a hidden camera Stephen used to record naked players in a
hotel room in Lombard, Ill., and Ankeny. They also recovered covert
recording devices from his Monticello and Delhi homes.
Investigators said Stephen sexually exploited more than 400 boys
over 20 years. With the Iowa Barnstormers, he coached promising
young players who earned college scholarships, including to play at
universities such as Iowa, Northern Iowa and Wisconsin.
The teens did not know they were being recorded, according to court
documents.
Stephen also posed as teenage girls on social media to persuade the
boys to send him explicit images, according to testimony in plea
and sentencing hearings.
In February, a judge's ruling that allowed all former and present
members of the Barnstormers who were potential victims while
Stephen was a coach made it easier for all to join the class
action. Cook said then it should help advance a settlement of the
case.
"In addition, BBI has also agreed, as part of the settlement, to
the principle of strict adherence to appropriate youth protection
protocols and policies to safeguard the welfare of youth athletes
and to prevent misconduct of volunteers," Cook said of the deal.
"This settlement is outstanding news for the former Barnstormer
players and all future youth athletes."
The unnamed player sued the former coach, the Barnstormers, team
sponsor Adidas and the Amateur Athletic Union for being negligent
in hiring and supervising Stephen and having inadequate policies to
protect "vulnerable youth athletes from the despicable conduct" of
Stephen. [GN]
J.B. HUNT: Taylor FCRA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
The case styled BRUCE TAYLOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC.,
Case No. L-001599-22, was removed from the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on July 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:22-cv-04832 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide certain disclosures and
a copy of a background report prior to taking an adverse employment
action based in whole or in part on the report.
J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc. is an American transportation
and logistics company based in Lowell, Arkansas. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael W. McTigue, Jr., Esq.
Meredith C. Slawe, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: (212) 735-3000
Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
E-mail: michael.mctigue@skadden.com
meredith.slawe@skadden.com
JAN-PRO FRANCHISING: Bid for Class Certification Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GLORIA ROMAN, GERARDO
VAZQUEZ, and JUAN AGUILAR, v. JAN-PRO FRANCHISING INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-05961-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
William Alsup entered an order:
-- granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification; and
-- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
for summary judgment;
-- denying the Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
all certified issues.
Specifically, the order grants the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to failure to pay minimum wage for mandatory
training, failure to reimburse for expenses incurred for required
uniforms and necessary cleaning supplies and equipment, and
unlawful deductions of management fees and sales and marketing fees
for the following group:
-- all unit franchisees who signed a franchise agreement
with a master franchisee in the state of California and
who performed cleaning services for defendant from
December 12, 2004, to the latest date on which a named
plaintiff terminated employment. The limit on the class
period is proper because plaintiffs cannot show that
their experience was similar to that of persons who
worked for defendant after the last of plaintiffs was
terminated. This order denies class certification as to
the remaining labor code claims and issues.
This order grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs on all
certified issues. As to Labor Code Section 226, the Order denies as
moot both parties' motions for summary judgment. A separate order
on the instant briefing shall resolve the parties' motions for
summary judgment as to the uncertified, individual claims and
issues that remain.
The parties shall please provide a form of class notice for
approval. They shall also provide a plan of distribution and a
timetable for distribution of notice and for opt outs. Given the
need for these steps, trial and the pretrial conference shall not
be held in September. Those events shall be set for early 2023.
Counsel shall meet and confer and propose a window of trial dates
convenient to both sides, the Court says.
The Plaintiffs Gloria Roman, Gerardo Vazquez, and Juan Aguilar
performed janitorial services on behalf of defendant Jan-Pro
Franchising. The Plaintiffs claim defendant misclassified them and
the putative class members as independent contractors. They allege
the defendant violated California minimum wage, overtime, expense
reimbursement, and unlawful deduction laws, and they seek
compensation on behalf of the putative class.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PpJkPn at no extra charge.[CC]
KENDO HOLDINGS: Saintigene TCPA Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TANICHA SAINTIGENE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. KENDO HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
CACE-22-009314, was removed from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit
Court in and for Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on July 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-61417 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act by making or causing to be made unlawful
telephonic sales calls, specifically text messages, without prior
express written consent.
Kendo Holdings, Inc. is a company that creates and acquires beauty
brands, headquartered in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Josh A. Migdal, Esq.
Yaniv Adar, Esq.
MARK MIGDAL & HAYDEN
80 S.W. 8th Street, Suite 1999
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 374-0440
E-mail: josh@markmigdal.com
yaniv@markmigdal.com
KNAUF GIPS: Appleby Class Suit Moved From E.D. La. to S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VERONICA APPLEBY, PRISCILLA BROWN, JULIAN BROWN,
PETER C. DEATON, JERMAINE V. ELLIS, MONIQUE ELLIS, EQWETRUST, LLC,
HESTON SAMUEL o.b.o. H. H. SAMUEL PROPERTIES, LLC, CINTIA M.
IGARZABAL, NEVILLE A. KELLY, VALENTIN MANSUROV, NELINDA MARTINEZ,
TREVORLYN FAY MCELROY, MESSINA R. MOHAMMED, FAROUK MOHAMMED,
JEFFREY ROBBINS, PATRISHA SAMANTHA SAMAROO, RAFAELA C. WAGNER,
ANDREW K. WAGNER, DUEANE WARREN, and STACEY WARREN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KNAUF GIPS KG and
KNAUF PLASTERBOARD TIANJIN CO., LTD, Case No. 2:21-cv-02034, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on July 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Florida assigned
Case No. 0:22-cv-61411-RAR to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged negligence, negligence
per se, strict liability, breach of express and/or implied
warranty, private nuisance, negligent discharge of a corrosive
substance, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation,
negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and
violation of consumer protectional acts by manufacturing,
distributing, marketing, and installing a defective drywall.
Knauf GIPS, KG is a manufacturer of building materials and systems,
headquartered in Iphofen, Germany.
Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., Ltd is a manufacturer of drywall
based in Tianjin, China. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James V. Doyle, Esq.
DOYLE LAW FIRM, PC
2100 Southbridge Pkwy., Suite 650
Birmingham, AL 35209
Telephone: (205) 533-9500
Facsimile: (844) 638-5812
E-mail: Jim.doyle@doylefirm.com
KSF ACQUISITION: Cintron Sues Over Mislabeled Smoothie Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
MAGALI CINTRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 7:22-cv-06541 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 2, 2022) is an action against the
Defendant's mislabeled "SlimFast Original Shake Mixes," "SlimFast
Advanced Nutrition Smoothie Mixes," and "SlimFast Advanced Immunity
Orange Cream Swirl Smoothie" (the "Products").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant markets
its Products in a systematically misleading manner, by
misrepresenting that its Products have specific amounts of protein
that they do not in fact contain.
KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION markets an eponymous brand of shakes,
bars, snacks, packaged meals, and other dietary supplement foods.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
Joseph Lipari, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000
New York, NY 10111
Tel: (212) 884-4230
Email: adrian@gr-firm.com
LYTE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Silva Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LYTE CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
220V401584 (Cal. Sup., Santa Clara Cty., Aug. 1, 2022) is an action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime
compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide
accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business
expenses.
Plaintiff Silva was employed by the Defendant as construction
worker.
LYTE CONSTRUCTION, LLC operates a construction company in Santa
Clara, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: (310) 277-06 14
Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
Email: cia@ackermanntilaief.com
MB COATINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Estrada Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR ESTRADA; and MARTIN ESTRADA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MB COATINGS, INC.; MIKE
BARTLE; and AMANDA BARTLE, Defendants, Case No. 8:22-cv-01427 (C.D.
Cal., Aug. 1, 2022) is an action against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit
meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and
reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as staff.
MB COATINGS INC. is a freight shipping trucking company from
Orange, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
Gonzalo Quezada, Esq.
MALLISON & MARTINEZ
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
Oakland, CA 94612-3547
Telephone: (510) 832-9999
Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
Email: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
GQuezada@TheMMLawFirm.com
MERCEDES-BENZ: Hamm Seeks Leave to File Bid for Reconsideration
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY HAMM, On Behalf of
Himself And All Others Similarly Situated, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA,
LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03370-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff seeks
leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration of the Court's
April 2, 2021 Order denying his motion for class certification of
his Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) claim.
The Plaintiff contends that the Order's sole basis for denying
class certification was its view that the element of reliance
was dispositive. In focusing on reliance as the essential element
missing, the Court held it potentially raised different proof or
defenses among Hamm and the absent class members, thereby defeating
Rule 23's requisite showings of typicality and predominance.
Mercedes-Benz is a Mercedes-Benz Group-owned distributor for
passenger cars in the United States, headquartered in Sandy
Springs, Georgia. that sells cars from the Mercedes-Benz brand.
Mercedes-Benz USA was founded in 1965 to integrate sales in the
most important foreign market into the Group.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QcvLE1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
2262 Carmel Valley Road, Suite 201
Del Mar, CA 92014
Telephone: (619) 363 3333
E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com
- and -
Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
Jay I. Brody, Esq.
KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMMER
& GRAIFMAN, P.C.
747 Chestnut Ridge Road
Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
Telephone: (845) 356-2570
E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
MICHAEL CARTWRIGHT: Bid for Evidentiary Hearing Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. MICHAEL T. CARTWRIGHT, et al., Case No. 3:19-cv-00407
(M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Eli Richardson entered an order
denying the Defendants' motion for evidentiary hearing on
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
The Court says that it will sua sponte schedule such a hearing if
it finds that an evidentiary hearing would be beneficial to the
Court in deciding the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3QwqNBH at no extra charge.[CC]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Beldock Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN BELDOCK; GORDON BROWARD; and SHAADI NEZAMI, individually
and, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION; THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MICROSOFT
CORPORATION; THE 401(K) ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE MICROSOFT
CORPORATION SAVINGS PLUS 401(K) PLAN, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01082 (W.D. Wa., Aug. 2, 2022) is an action against the
Defendants alleging breach of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendant
Defendants selected, retained, and ratified poorly‐performing
investments instead of offering more prudent alternative
investments that were readily available at the time the Defendants
selected and retained the funds at issue and throughout the Class
Period. Since the Defendants have discretion to select the
investments made available to participants, the Defendants'
breaches are the direct cause of the losses the Plaintiff and the
Class suffered, says the suit.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION operates as a software company. The Company
offers applications, extra cloud storage, and advanced security
solutions. Microsoft serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98103
Telephone: (206) 816‐6603
Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450
Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
- and -
James E. Miller, Esq.
Laurie Rubinow, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Telephone: (866) 540‐5505
Facsimile: (866) 300‐7367
Email: jemiller@millershah.com
lrubinow@millershah.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (866) 540‐5505
Facsimile: (866) 300‐7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
ajberin@millershah.com
- and -
Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Blvd.
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (866) 540‐5505
Facsimile: (866) 300‐7367
Email: kctang@millershah.com
MIDLAND CREDIT: Algranati FDCPA Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TERRY ALGRANATI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1 to 10, Case No. HUD-L-2066-22, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 29,
2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
2:22-cv-04818 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. is an American debt buyer and debt
collection company, headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Han Sheng Beh, Esq.
HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP
800 Third Avenue, 13th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 471-6200
Facsimile: (212) 935-1166
MINNESOTA DHS: Class Action Suit Over Disability Rights Settled
---------------------------------------------------------------
MPR News reports that people with disabilities who live in group
homes have reached a settlement almost six years after they filed a
lawsuit alleging that Minnesota disability programs rely too much
on group homes and don't provide support for people to live more
independently.
As part of the settlement, the state Department of Human Services
(DHS) agrees to provide assistance to all people with disabilities
living in four-person group homes who wish to transition to
different housing. The agency is also agreeing to track the people
interested in more individual living to ensure they're getting the
support they need from case managers.
About 13,000 people live in these small group homes in the state.
The settlement could affect more than 1,000 residents who wish to
move, said Justin Perl, head of litigation for the Minnesota
Disability Law Center, which is part of Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid.
Perl said some plaintiffs who lived in group homes when the lawsuit
was filed in 2016 have now moved into their own spaces.
"They are so much happier, and they are able to do much more, in
terms of, one is running her own art business and one is just out
in the community and able to do much more," Perl said. "So, it's
clearly a quality of life issue."
A spokesperson from DHS pointed to a new service it launched in
2020 called Housing Stabilization Services that helps people find
and keep housing.
"Every person with a disability should have the opportunity to live
where they choose," the agency's statement read. "DHS recognizes
that finding housing is challenging and we continue to work to
improve access for those we serve."
As part of the settlement, the state also agrees to pay more than
$1.1 million dollars to cover attorneys fees, although Perl said a
monetary settlement wasn't the point of the lawsuit.
"That money will be used to help more people with disabilities and
more vulnerable folks in our communities," Perl said, "so we're
pleased with that result as well."
Final court approval for the settlement is scheduled for Jan. 4,
2023. [GN]
MOSQUITO SQUAD: Seeks Leave to Submit Limited Briefing
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL LENOROWITZ,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MOSQUITO SQUAD OF FAIRFIELD AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY, Case No.
3:20-cv-01922-JBA (D. Conn.), the Defendant submits a motion
seeking leave for permission to file limited briefing on standing
as relevant to the pending motion for class certification.
On July 26, 2022, at the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification, the Court raised questions regarding Article III
standing in the context of class actions.
One day after the oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit issued an
opinion in Drazen v. Pinto, F.4th2022 WL 2963470 (11th Cir. July
27, 2022), holding, in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA")
class action, that every class member must have Article III
standing to recover individual damages, and vacating the district
court's approval of TCPA class certification and settlement on the
ground that the class definition was defective because it included
class members who lacked Article III standing.
The Eleventh Circuit explained that federal courts "must assure
[themselves] that they have Article III standing at every stage of
the litigation," including at class certification and even if not
raised by either party. Drazen, 2022 WL 2963470; TransUnion LLC v.
Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2204-2205, 2008 (2021).
In light of this recent new decision, and the questions raised by
this Court at oral argument, MSFW requests that the Court grant its
motion for leave to file additional limited briefing on standing as
relevant to Plaintiff's pending motion for class certification and
allow the parties to brief that issue not to exceed five pages from
each. In particular, if the Court grants this motion, MSFW requests
up to 14 days to file its additional brief not to exceed five
pages, and MSFW proposes that Plaintiff have up to 21 days to file
a responsive brief not to exceed five pages, with no additional
briefing by either side.
Mosquito Squad offers barrier spraying and misting to control
mosquito and ticks.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3PbtirZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Sovak, Esq.
BUSHELL, SOVAK & KANE LLP
274 Madison Avenue, Suite 901
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 949-4700
Facsimile: (212) 286-0573
E-mail: csovak@bushellsovak.com
- and -
Joseph Patrick Sargent, Esq.
1595 Black Rock Turnpike
Fairfield, CT 06824
Telephone: (203) 325-2323
Facsimile: (203) 659-7360
E-mail: josephpsargent@yahoo.com
- and -
Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN
12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92130-4092
Telephone: (858) 720-7483
E-mail: spetersen@sheppardmullin.com
MYLAN INC: Summary Judgment in Suit Over EpiPen Monopoly Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re: EPIPEN (EPINEPHRINE INJECTION, USP) MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES AND ANTITRUST LITIGATION. SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S., LLC,
Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant v. MYLAN, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, and MYLAN SPECIALTY, LP, Defendant
Counterclaimant-Appellee. OPEN MARKETS INSTITUTE; AMERICAN
ANTITRUST INSTITUTE; ALLERGY & ASTHMA NETWORK; THE COMMITTEE TO
SUPPORT THE ANTITRUST LAWS; PHARMACEUTICAL CARE MANAGEMENT
ASSOCIATION; INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMICS AND SCHOLARS
OF LAW AND ECONOMICS; THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA; J. GREGORY SIDAK, Amici Curiae, Case No. 21-3005 (10th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms the
district court's order granting Mylan's motion for summary
judgment.
In 2017, Plaintiff Sanofi sued Defendants Mylan, Inc. and Mylan
Specialty, LP under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Sanofi,
one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, alleges Mylan,
the distributor of EpiPen, monopolized the epinephrine
auto-injector market effectively and illegally foreclosing Auvi-Q
-- Sanofi's innovative epinephrine auto-injector -- from the
market.
Sanofi originally filed the action in the District of New Jersey,
but the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the
case to the District of Kansas for coordinated discovery with a
related consumer class action. After discovery, the parties
cross-moved for summary judgment on the two elements of Sanofi's
claim: "(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market
and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as
distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a
superior product, business acumen, or historic accident." Sanofi
moved on the first element, Mylan on the second.
In a learned order, the district court granted Mylan's motion and
denied Sanofi's motion as moot. It held Sanofi could not survive
summary judgment because, based on the undisputed summary judgment
facts, no reasonable jury could conclude Mylan engaged in
exclusionary conduct--the second element of monopolization. Sanofi
appeals.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal to "monopolize" any
part of the trade or commerce among the several states. The offense
of monopolization "has two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly
power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or
maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or
development as a consequence of a superior product, business
acumen, or historic accident." The second element is often called
the "exclusionary conduct" element. To survive summary judgment,
the plaintiff must present a triable issue of both (1) monopoly
power and (2) exclusionary conduct.
The issue of monopoly power -- the power to "raise prices
substantially above a competitive level without losing so much
business that the gambit becomes unprofitable" -- is not in play in
the case. The district court held there was no triable issue of
exclusionary conduct, meaning, for purposes of summary judgment, it
was unnecessary to reach the issue of monopoly power. Thus, the
sole issue on appeal is whether the district court properly granted
summary judgment on the exclusionary conduct element.
The appeal presents a simple question: Can a plaintiff present a
triable issue of monopolization without offering any evidence of
actual or threatened consumer harm?
The Tenth Circuit opines such a plaintiff cannot. Mylan's allegedly
exclusionary conduct can be split up into three categories: (1)
Mylan's use of exclusive rebate agreements; (2) the leveraging of
EpiPen's entrenched demand to deny Sanofi a meaningful opportunity
to compete for the non-entrenched demand; and (3) other conduct
working in concert to lock Sanofi out of the market, including
Mylan's EpiPen4Schools program and the misclassification of EpiPen
as a generic drug for Medicaid purposes.
The Tenth Circuit takes each in turn and concludes that, considered
separately or together, the district court properly held the
summary judgment facts present no triable issue of exclusionary
conduct. It explains, when antitrust and the health insurance
industry meet, a nearly impenetrable fog descends upon what might
otherwise be a manageable case. What occurred in this case is no
different than the competition which occurs at thousands of retail
stores across the country -- ranging from supermarket behemoths to
family-owned mercantiles. These stores bring about lower prices for
their customers by engaging in the exact same practices Sanofi
complains of -- and, astoundingly, the stores often discover and
utilize these practices without exploiting any special economic
expertise.
For example, a mercantile might enter discussions with several
bakeries to decide whose bread will occupy its shelves. During
these negotiations, the mercantile can solicit lower wholesale
prices by promising a bakery preferred positioning at the front of
the aisle where sales are higher. And every so often, when a bakery
offers low enough wholesale prices, the mercantile might
exclusively stock that bakery's bread. Despite being unable to
choose between multiple brands of bread, the mercantile's customers
are unlikely to complain. They are, after all, compensated in the
form of lower retail prices. By deciding to stock only one bakery's
bread, the mercantile does not eliminate competition in the bread
market—instead competition takes on a different, more powerful
form, but one that is harder to intuitively understand.
The same thing happened in the epinephrine auto-injector market:
instead of competing on the formulary, Mylan and Sanofi competed
for the formulary. Mylan's legitimate competition for the formulary
must not now expose it to liability. "The successful competitor,
having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he
wins." Without any evidence of harm to competition -- as opposed to
harm from competition -- Sanofi cannot present this case to a jury.
Considered separately or together, Sanofi's arguments do not raise
a triable issue of exclusionary conduct. For these reasons the
district court's judgment is affirmed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2jw3u92e from Leagle.com.
Gregory Silbert -- gregory.silbert@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges LLP, New York, New York (Yehudah L. Buchweitz --
yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com -- Eric S. Hochstadt --
eric.hochstadt@weil.com -- Joshua Halpern -- josh.halpern@weil.com
-- of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York and
Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant.
Roy T. Englert, Jr. -- renglert@robbinsrussell.com -- (Philip A.
Sechler -- jgoerlich@robbinsrussell.com -- Lee Turner Friedman --
LFriedman@robbinsrussell.com -- Ralph C. Mayrell --
rmayrell@robbinsrussell.com -- John B. Goerlich with him on the
brief) of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Defendant Counterclaimant-Appellee.
Sandeep Vaheesan of Open Markets Institute, Washington, D.C.; David
Seligman of Towards Justice, Denver, Colorado, for Amicus Curiae
Open Markets Institute.
Randy M. Stutz -- rstutz@antitrustinstitute.org -- of American
Antitrust Institute, Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American
Antitrust Institute.
Joseph D. Adamson of Lane Powell PC, Seattle, Washington, for
Amicus Curiae Allergy & Asthma Network.
Deborah A. Elman -- delman@garwingerstein.com -- of Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A., New York, New York; Archana Tamoshunas of Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, New York, New York; Swathi Bojedla of
Hausfeld LLP, Washington, D.C.; Gary I. Smith, Jr. of Hausfeld LLP,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Amicus Curiae The Committee to
Support the Antitrust Laws.
John S. Linehan -- jlinehan@ebglaw.com -- of Pharmaceutical Care
Management Association, Washington, D.C.; Ruthanne M. Deutsch and
Hyland Hunt of Deutsch Hunt PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Amicus
Curiae Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@kellogghansen.com -- Jayme L. Weber and
Hannah D. Carlin -- hcarlin@kellogghansen.com -- of Kellogg,
Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for
Amici Curiae International Center for Law & Economics and Scholars
of Law and Economics.
Daryl Joseffer and Paul Lettow of U.S. Chamber Litigation Center,
Washington, D.C.; Seth P. Waxman , Leon B. Greenfield and David M.
Lehn of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Amicus Curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United
States of America.
J. Gregory Sidak -- jgsidak@criterioneconomics.com -- Golden Oak,
Florida; Jeffrey A. Lamken -- jlamken@mololamken.com -- Lucas M.
Walker -- lwalker@mololamken.com -- Lauren M. Weinstein --
lweinstein@mololamken.com -- and Kenneth E. Notter III --
knotter@mololamken.com -- of MoloLamken LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Amicus Curiae J. Gregory Sidak.
NEW AMERICAN: Martin Files Copyright Infringement Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Katrina Martin, Plaintiff v. New American Cinema Group, Inc., Marie
Serra, a/k/a MM Serra, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-05982 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 13, 2022) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on her
own behalf and all others similarly situated, against the Defendant
for violations of her exclusive rights under the Copyright Act to
reproduce, prepare derivative works, and distribute copies of her
original copyrighted work of authorship, namely a film entitled
"Hanafuda/Jasper Johns."
The Plaintiff has a federal copyright registration on the film,
#PA0000206560, which was registered on January 6, 1984. At all
relevant times, Plaintiff was the owner of all right, title and
interest in and to the film and its copyrights, and is the true
owner of any derivative works thereof.
According to the complaint, Defendant NACG is a custodian of a
large number of avantgarde and experimental films. Upon information
and belief, NACG's collection includes over 5,000 film titles by
more than 900 filmmakers. The films in NACG's custody include
Plaintiff's film, other films made by Plaintiff, and films made by
other class members.
To wit, in or about October 2019, without Plaintiff's knowledge,
NACG reproduced Plaintiff's film, which was an original work on
celluloid film, by making digital versions of the same. In making
the conversion, NACG made multiple changes to the film, remastering
it from an old 16mm film print that is, by definition, less sharp
than the author's film original, with color that has shifted and
faded over time, says the suit.
NACG, in September 2019, without Plaintiff's authorization, rented
the Digital Derivative to the Carnegie Museum of Art for its
exhibition "An Art of Changes: Jasper Johns Prints, 1960-2018." The
film played continuously in the museum galleries from October 20,
2019 through January 20, 2020. Further, NACG pledges on its website
to let members "set the rental price" for which their films are
rented. After NACG illegally created the Digital Derivative of
Plaintiff's work, it rented that Digital Derivative to the Carnegie
Museum of Art without allowing Plaintiff to "set the rental price."
Indeed, Plaintiff typically charges an exhibition fee for similar
showings of $850, while NACG charged the Carnegie Museum of Art
only $200, the suit alleges.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Erik Dykema, Esq.
Serge Krimnus, Esq.
BOCHNER IP PLLC
295 Madison Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 971-0685
E-mail: erik@bochnerip.com
serge@bochnerip.com
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Goe v. Department of Health
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JANE GOE, SR., on behalf of herself and her minor
child, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. HOWARD ZUCKER, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of Health for the State of New
York, et al.; and all others similarly situated,
Defendants-Appellees, SHENENDEHOWA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. L.
OLIVER ROBINSON, acting in his official capacity as Superintendent,
Shenendehowa Central School District, SEAN GNAT, acting in his
official capacity as Principal, Koda Middle School, Shenendehowa
Central School District, ANDREW HILLS, acting in his official
capacity as Principal, Arongen Elementary School, Shenendehowa
Central School District, Defendants, Case No. 21-0537-cv (2d Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the
district court's judgment dismissing the underlying action.
Under New York State law, all children must be immunized against
certain diseases to be admitted to school or to attend school for
more than fourteen days. Prior to June 2019, New York law allowed
exemptions from this immunization requirement for both non-medical
and medical reasons. That year, following a nationwide measles
outbreak, New York State repealed the non-medical exemption and
adopted new regulations that clarified the requirements for a
medical exemption. Specifically, the State narrowed the
availability of medical exemptions to cases consistent with
guidelines issued by the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices ("ACIP") of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention or with other nationally recognized evidence-based
standards of care.
The Plaintiffs-Appellants are a national not-for-profit children's
advocacy organization and several parents, suing on behalf of
themselves and their children, whose requests for medical
exemptions from the school immunization requirements were largely
denied. They brought the action against the Defendants-Appellees --
the New York State Department of Health, Health Department
officials, local school districts, and local school district
officials -- alleging that the new regulations and the enforcement
thereof violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 794.
On July 23, 2020, the Plaintiffs commenced the putative class
action against the Defendants, challenging the new regulations.
After the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint for
failure to state a claim, the Plaintiffs filed a letter motion for
leave to amend the complaint. The Plaintiffs included with their
motion the First Amended Complaint (FAC), which alleged (1) four
constitutional claims for relief based on the Fourteenth Amendment,
including for violations of their substantive due process rights,
their "liberty interest in parenting," their "liberty interest in
informed consent," and burdening a minor's right to pursue an
education; and (2) two claims for relief under the Rehabilitation
Act for discrimination based on the disability status of the
Plaintiffs' children.
The district court granted the Defendants' motions on Feb. 17,
2021. It rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that strict scrutiny
applied and concluded that the new regulations were reasonably
related to the State's public health objectives of maintaining high
vaccination rates in schools and ensuring that medical exemptions
were issued based on evidence-based guidance. It also dismissed the
Rehabilitation Act claims, concluding that the Plaintiffs had
failed to plead plausible claims of disability discrimination.
Judgment was entered accordingly.
The appeal followed.
First, the Second Circuit considers whether the district court
properly applied the motion to dismiss standard to the FAC. Second,
it determines whether the new regulations violate the Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Third, it
addresses whether the regulations violate the Plaintiffs' rights
under the Rehabilitation Act.
The Second Circuit opines that (i) the district court properly
applied the 12(b)(6) motion standards in dismissing the FAC; (ii)
the new regulations do not implicate a fundamental right, and that
therefore strict scrutiny does not apply; (iii) it agrees with the
district court that the new regulations and the State's delegation
of enforcement authority to school officials are reasonably related
to a legitimate state objective, and that they therefore satisfy
rational basis review; (iv) because the district court correctly
concluded that the FAC failed to plausibly allege any underlying
constitutional violations, it did not err in dismissing the
municipal liability claims against the School District Defendants;
(v) the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege that they were excluded
from school "solely by reason of" their disabilities, and the
district court did not err in dismissing the Rehabilitation Act
claims.
For these reasons, the Second Circuit concludes that the district
court did not err in granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
As a procedural matter, that the district court properly applied
the motion to dismiss standards. As a substantive matter, that
neither the new regulations nor the enforcement thereof violated
the Due Process Clause or the Rehabilitation Act. Accordingly, the
district court's judgment dismissing the action is affirmed.
The other Plaintiffs-Appellants are JANE DOE, on behalf of herself
and her minor child, JANE BOE, SR., on behalf of herself and her
minor child, JOHN COE, SR., on behalf of himself and his minor
children, JANE COE, SR., on behalf of herself and her minor
children, JOHN FOE, SR., on behalf of himself and his minor child,
JANE LOE, on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child,
JANE JOE, on behalf of herself and her medically fragile child, and
CHILDREN'S HEALTH DEFENSE.
The other Defendants-Appellees are ELIZABETH RAUSCH-PHUNG, M.D., in
her official capacity as Director of the Bureau of Immunizations at
the New York State Department of Health, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH, THREE VILLAGE CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, CHERYL PEDISICH,
acting in her official capacity as Superintendent, Three Village
Central School District, CORINNE KEANE, acting in her official
capacity as Principal, Paul J. Gelinas Jr. High School, Three
Village Central School District, LANSING CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
CHRIS PETTOGRASSO, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Lansing Central School District, CHRISTINE REBERA,
acting in her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Middle
School, Lansing Central School District, LORRI WHITEMAN, acting in
her official capacity as Principal, Lansing Elementary School,
Lansing Central School District, PENFIELD CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT,
DR. THOMAS PUTNAM, acting in his official capacity as
Superintendent, Penfield Central School District, SOUTH HUNTINGTON
SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. DAVID P. BENNARDO, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, South Huntington School District, BR.
DAVID MIGLIORINO, acting in his official capacity as Principal, St.
Anthony's High School, South Huntington School District, ITHACA
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, DR. LUVELLE BROWN, acting in his official
capacity as Superintendent, Ithaca City School District, SUSAN
ESCHBACH, acting in her official capacity as Principal, Beverly J.
Martin Elementary School, Ithaca City School District,
COXSACKIE-ATHENS SCHOOL DISTRICT, RANDALL SQUIER, acting in his
official capacity as Superintendent, Coxsackie-Athens School
District, FREYA MERCER, acting in her official capacity as
Principal, Coxsackie-Athens School District, ALBANY CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT, KAWEEDA G. ADAMS, acting in her official capacity as
Superintendent, Albany City School District, MICHAEL PAOLINO,
acting in his official capacity as Principal, William S. Hackett
Middle School and Albany City School District.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Opinion is available
at https://tinyurl.com/2p9d3f5y from Leagle.com.
SUJATA S. GIBSON -- info@thegibsonlawfirm.com -- The Gibson Law
Firm, PLLC, Ithaca, New York (Michael H. Sussman --
sussman1@frontiernet.net -- and Jonathan R. Goldman, Sussman and
Associates, Goshen, New York, and Mary Holland and Robert F.
Kennedy, Jr., Children's Health Defense, New York, New York, on the
brief), for the Plaintiffs-Appellants.
BEEZLY J. KIERNAN, Assistant Solicitor General of Counsel (Barbara
D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Jeffrey W. Lang, Deputy Solicitor
General, on the brief), for Letitia James, Attorney General of the
State of New York, Albany, New York, for Defendants-Appellees
Zucker, Rausch-Phung, and the New York State Department of Health.
ADAM I. KLEINBERG -- akleinberg@sokoloffstern.com -- Sokoloff
Stern, LLP, Carle Place, New York (Gregg T. Johnson, April J. Laws,
Loraine C. Jelinek, Johnson Laws, LLC, Clifton Park, New York, on
the brief), for Defendants-Appellees Three Village Central School
District, Pedisich, Keane, South Huntington School District,
Bennardo, Ithaca City School District, Brown, Eschbach, Albany City
School District, Adams, and Paolino.
ROXANNE L. TASHJIAN -- RTashjian@cullenllp.com -- (James G. Ryan --
JRyan@cullenllp.com -- on the brief) Cullen and Dykman LLP, Garden
City, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Lansing Central School
District, Pettograsso, Rebera, Whiteman, Penfield Central School
District, Putnam, Coxsackie-Athens School District, Squier, and
Mercer.
Meishin Riccardulli -- Meishin.Riccardulli@lawbhs.com -- Philip C.
Semprevivo, Jr. -- Philip.Semprevivo@lawbhs.com -- Biedermann
Hoenig Semprevivo PC, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee
Migliorino.
NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Settles Suit Over Vaccine Mandate for $10M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonah Meadows of Patch (Illinois) reports that a local hospital
conglomerate agreed to pay more than $10 million to end a class
action lawsuit over its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
Representatives of NorthShore University HealthSystem and the group
of 14 then-employees who filed a federal civil rights lawsuit in
October 2021 have agreed upon a settlement agreement to end the
suit, court records show.
Attorneys for the staffers described the tentative class-wide
settlement as "historic" and the "first of its kind."
NorthShore agreed to establish a $10,337,500 fund, which will
provide compensation to approximately 523 of its current or former
employees who were denied religious exemptions from its vaccine
mandate requested between July 2021 and January 2022.
The hospital's workers are eligible for payouts whether they
received a vaccine, quit because of it, or were fired due to their
"religious declination of a COVID-19 vaccine," according to the
terms of the proposed agreement.
An estimated 269 people resigned or were fired from their jobs at
NorthShore based on their religious exemption, while about 204
received the vaccine after their religious exemptions were denied.
According to a court filings, the employees who agreed to get
vaccine despite their religious objections may be eligible to
receive about $3,000, while those who were terminated could get
about $25,000.
Identified in court documents as Jane Does 1 through 14, the
staffers include 11 nurses, a pharmacy technician, a patient access
representative and a senior application analyst.
Citing the use of fetal tissue in medical research, they alleged
the hospital operator's requirement that its then-approximately
17,000 employees get vaccinated against the coronavirus
discriminated against them because of their religious beliefs.
One of them was granted a religious accommodation and kept her job,
while the other 13 have left, according to court records.
The agreement calls for each of those 13 women to receive an
additional $20,000. Their attorneys asked the judge to approve the
allocation of more than $2.06 million in attorneys fees, which they
described as well below the typical amount awarded.
Although both sides have agreed on the settlement deal, it must
still be approved by a federal judge.
All employees terminated because of their refusal to get vaccinated
for religious reasons will be eligible to be rehired at their
previous level of seniority, should they apply within three months
of the settlement's final approval.
NorthShore has also agreed to revise its staff vaccination policy
and "maintain a step-by-step review process for requests for
religious exemptions and accommodations."
Attorneys for the nurses said hospital representatives pledged to
provide religious accommodations to all employees at every
facility.
According to the request for court approval of the settlement
agreement, attorneys for both sides met in May for a daylong
mediation session with an experienced Title VII class action
mediator, after which they engaged in further negotiations to
hammer out each element of the 24-page proposed class action
settlement agreement.
"The Parties' extensive efforts led to the Settlement Agreement --
a product of hardfought, principled negotiations initiated by a
well-respected mediator," according to the 29-page brief in support
of the request for a certification of the settlement class and
preliminary approval of the settlement.
A NorthShore spokesperson said in a statement the settlement is in
line with its revised staff vaccination policy. Since the lawsuit
was originally filed, NorthShore added three additional hospitals
through a merger to grow to more than 25,000 employees.
"We continue to support system-wide, evidence-based vaccination
requirements for everyone who works at NorthShore - Edward-Elmhurst
Health and thank our team members for helping to keep our
communities safe," NorthShore Public Relations Director Colette
Urban told Patch. "The settlement reflects implementation of a new
system-wide vaccine policy which will include accommodation for
team members with approved exemptions, including former employees
who are rehired."
The Jane Doe plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the
nonprofit group Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Florida-based
Christian ministry founded in 1989 by two attorneys who are married
to each other, according to its website. Its anti-LGBTQ advocacy
has led the Southern Poverty Law Center to designate it as a hate
group.
Horatio Mihet, the chief litigation counsel of Liberty Counsel and
lead attorney for the Jane Does in the case, said in a statement
that he was very pleased with "historic" settlement.
"The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required
by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to
NorthShore's employees who were callously forced to choose between
their conscience and their jobs," Mihet said. "This settlement
should also serve as a strong warning to employers across the
nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere
religious objections to forced vaccination mandates."
Liberty Counsel founder and chairman, Mat Staver, also issued a
statement Friday, describing the settlement as the "first of its
kind in the nation" involving mandatory coronavirus vaccinations.
"This settlement should be a wake-up call to every employer that
did not accommodate or exempt employees who opposed the COVID shots
for religious reasons. Let this case be a warning to employers that
violated Title VII," Staver said. "It is especially significant and
gratifying that this first classwide COVID settlement protects
health care workers. Health care workers are heroes who daily give
their lives to protect and treat their patients. They are needed
now more than ever." [GN]
PARKASH 1630: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Delfino Adan Diaz v.
Parkash 1630, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-08382-VEC (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendant seek an extension of the time to file opposition to
Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification.
As the Court is aware, the Plaintiff's filed the same on July 22,
2022. Per the Court's order on July 15, 2022, the Defendant has
until August 5, 2022 to file any opposition. Due to a preplanned 10
day vacation, the Defendant's counsel is requesting until August
19, 2022 to respond, with the reply date August 26, 2022.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SBt1S2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin Johnson, Esq.
HAMRA LAW GROUP, PC.
www.hamralawgroup.com
1 Linden Place, Suite 207
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (646) 590-0571
Facsimile: (646) 590-0571
E-mail: johnson hamralawgroup.com
PEGASYSTEMS INC: Securities Suit Moved From E.D. Va. to D. Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PEGASYSTEMS INC., ALAN TREFLER, and KENNETH
STILLWELL, Case No. 1:22-cv-00578, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on July 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:22-cv-11220-PGL to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading statements with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission in order to trade Pegasystems' common stock
at artificially inflated prices between May 29, 2020 and May 9,
2022.
City Fort Lauderdale Police and Firefighters' Retirement System is
a public pension fund in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Pegasystems Inc. is a software company, headquartered in Cambridge,
Massachusetts. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
Tara Zurawski, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: wkelley@hausfeld.com
tzurawski@hausfeld.com
- and –
Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
KLAUSNER KAUFMAN JENSEN & LEVINSON
7080 NW 4th Street
Plantation, FL 33317
Telephone: (954) 916-1202
Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com
- and –
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
7777 Glades Road, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Telephone: (561) 394-3399
Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
jwhite@saxenawhite.com
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
- and –
Steven B. Singer, Esq.
Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
10 Bank Street, 8th Floor
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (914) 437-8551
Facsimile: (888) 631-3611
E-mail: ssinger@saxenawhite.com
ravan@saxenawhite.com
PETER BARCA: Prelim Pretrial Conference Order Entered in Vargo
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR VARGO, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. PETER
W. BARCA, Case No. 20-cv-1109-jdp (W.D. Wisc,), the Hon. Judge
Stephen L. Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference order
as follows:
-- Amendments to the pleadings: August 12, 2022
-- Motion & Brief To Certify February 27, 2023
Classes:
Responses: March 27, 2023
Replies: April 10, 2023
-- Disclosure of Experts: To be determined by
the parties
-- Deadline for filing dispositive September 11, 2023
motions:
-- Discovery Cutoff: December 22, 2023
-- Settlement Letters: December 22, 2023
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures
and all motions in limine: January 26, 2024
-- Objections: February 9, 2024
-- First Final Pretrial February 21, 2024
Conference:
-- Second Final Pretrial February 28, 2024
Conference:
-- Trial: March 11, 2024
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3A8CeKv at no extra charge.[CC]
POPEYES LOUISIANA: Faces Suit Over Chicken Tenders' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that in Sanders v. Popeyes
Louisiana Kitchen, Inc., filed in New York, a proposed class action
alleges Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen has falsely advertised its
chicken tenders in that the products are actually made from chicken
breast, not tenderloins.
The 18-page lawsuit says that chicken tenderloins, small strips of
meat under each breast that run along the breastbone, are more
tender and juicier than regular chicken breast, making them "more
desirable for consumption" and thus more expensive.
Unbeknownst to consumers, Popeye's chicken tenders are made from
the remainder of the chicken breast, the suit claims, arguing that
buyers have paid a "premium price" based upon their belief that
what they were buying was comprised entirely of chicken tenderloin.
Per the case, each Popeye's chicken tenders product, including its
three-, five-, eight-, 10-, 12- and 16-piece combo meals, is
"falsely and deceptively" advertised. The complaint stresses that
consumers "do not know and have no reason to know" that Popeye's
chicken tenders are not made from chicken tenderloin.
"The perception that the Products are actual chicken tenders made
of entirely chicken tenderloins (and no other cut of chicken) is
material to consumers. Chicken tenderloins are the small strips of
meat that are loosely attached to the underside of each breast,
along the breastbone. As a result, chicken tenderloins are more
tender than chicken breast, and hence, the name chicken tender.
Chicken tenderloins are also more moist than regular chicken
breast, making them more desirable for consumption."
According to the filing, chicken tender products made by other
companies, such as Culvers, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Tyson, are
actually made from tenderloins.
"Through the use of misleading representations, Defendant commands
a price that Plaintiff and the Class would not have paid had they
been fully informed of the truth about the Products," the case
contends.
The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who
bought any Popeye's chicken tenderloin products for personal,
family or household consumption and not for resale within the
applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]
PURFOODS LLC: Martinez FLSA Suit Removed to N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled KEISHLA MARTINEZ and KATHY DOTSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PURFOODS, LLC, Case
No. 2022 CV 00994, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas,
Mahoning County, Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio on July 29, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Ohio assigned Case
No. 4:22-cv-01346 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Ohio
Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.
PurFoods, LLC is a food production company in Iowa. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew G. Vansuch, Esq.
BROUSE MCDOWELL LPA
6550 Seville Dr., Suite B
Canfield, OH 44406
Telephone: (330) 533-6195
Facsimile: (330) 533-6198
E-mail: mvansuch@brouse.com
- and –
Christopher J. Carney, Esq.
Anastasia J. Wade, Esq.
BROUSE MCDOWELL LPA
600 Superior Avenue East, Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 830-6830
Facsimile: (216) 830-6807
E-mail: ccarney@brouse.com
awade@brouse.com
RAYMOND JAMES: Nguyen Loses Class Status Bid
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY NGUYEN v. RAYMOND
JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 8:20-cv-00195-CEH-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and
memorandum of law in support.
The Court says, "The Plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements
of Rule 23(a) nor Rule 23(b). The class definition is overbroad,
and the Court is not able to ascertain who are the class members.
Even more fatal to the Plaintiff's request to certify a class is
the highly individualized nature of the determinations that are
needed to establish liability with respect to the suitability
claims raised in this action. This prohibits the Plaintiff from
satisfying a number of the requirements for class certification. As
such, the Court will not grant certification of a class in this
case."
Ms. Nguyen, on behalf of herself and all persons who had their
assets at RJA transferred from commission-based accounts into
Freedom Accounts during the Class Period, brings this action
against RJA, for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.
The Amended Complaint contains the following factual allegations.
RJA operates as a registered broker-dealer with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority and as a registered investment
advisor firm with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.
It engages in most aspects of securities distribution and
investment banking, and operates as a wealth management firm,
offering portfolio management, financial planning, and advisory
services. The Plaintiff has been a client of RJA since June 2015.
At the time, RJA offered commission-based accounts for which it
charged clients a modest fee per trade and fee-based accounts which
attracted an annual fee based on a percentage of the assets in the
client's account.
The Plaintiff's and putative class members' assets were originally
held in commission-based accounts. The Plaintiff's investment
strategy was to buy and hold, and she paid modest commissions for
the few trades that were executed.
In January 2016, RJA's registered representative, without
conducting any suitability analysis, advised Plaintiff to transfer
her assets, including shares in various mutual funds, into a
fee-based account. This was done even though the registered
representative knew Plaintiff's investment strategy; at no time was
Plaintiff advised that the fee-based account was not suitable for
her. RJA's policies and practices were designed to strongly
encourage its registered representatives to solicit and recommend
that clients transfer to fee-based accounts, and transitioning
smaller clients to Freedom Accounts was profitable for registered
representatives.
RJA operates as a wealth management firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vQZji9 at no extra charge.[CC]
RED BEACON: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Carson Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff vs. RED BEACON, INC. d/b/a PRO REFERRAL,
Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-04385 (N.D Cal., July 29, 2022) seeks
to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.
Red Beacon, Inc. provides online search directory services. The
Company offers local business listings with ratings and reviews of
screened and approved home contractors. Red Beacon assists
customers to get multiple price quotes and schedule appointments
with business professionals in the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, P.A
1925 Century Park E., #1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Email: Scott@Edelsberglaw.com
Telephone: 310-438-5355
REILLY FOAM: Faces Carreon Suit Over Biometric Data Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO CARREON; and MA DEL CARMEN MARTINEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. REILLY FOAM
CORP., Defendant, Case No. 2022LA000688 (Ill. Cir., Dupage Cty.,
Aug. 1, 2022) alleges violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as past and present
employees of the Defendant, the Plaintiffs and class members were
required to provide it with their personalized biometric
identifiers and the biometric information derived therefrom
("biometric data"). Specifically, the Defendant collects and stores
its employees' fingerprints and requires employees to clock-in and
clock-out by scanning their fingerprints into a
fingerprint-scanning machine.
However, the Defendant failed to (1) notify employees the practice
is taking place; (2) inform employees of how the practice is
implemented; (3) obtain written consent from the employees to
collect and store their biometric data; (4) maintain employees'
biometric data in a sufficiently secure manner; and (5) maintain a
publicly available disclosure of how the biometric data will be
handled and destroyed, the suit alleges.
REILLY FOAM CORPORATION manufactures fabricated foam components for
several industries & applications. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
William H. Beaumont, Esq.
BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC
107 W. Van Buren, Suite 209
Chicago, IL 60605
Telephone: (773) 831-8000
Email: rlc@beaumontcostales.com
whb@beaumontcostales.com
SNAP INC: Faces Suit Over Breach of Corporate Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF WARWICK RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNAP INC., EVAN
SPIEGEL, ROBERT MURPHY, KELLY COFFEY, JOANNA COLES, LIZ JENKINS,
MICHAEL LYNTON, STANLEY MERESMAN, SCOTT MILLER, POPPY THORPE, and
FIDEL VARGAS, Defendants, Case No. 2022-0679 (Del., Ch., Aug. 2,
2022) is an action arising out of the brazen attempt by the
controllers and co-founders of Snap, Evan Spiegel ("Spiegel") and
Robert Murphy ("Murphy" and together with Spiegel, the
"Co-Founders" or "Controller Defendants"), to entrench and extend
their control over the Company.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Controller
Defendants caused the Company to violate Delaware General
Corporation Law by amending its certificate of incorporation to
strip Snap's public stockholders of the voting rights peculiar to
their shares, without public stockholders' approval. The Controller
Defendants also caused the Company to enter into related agreements
through which the Company agreed to issue a dividend of non-voting
stock for the express purpose of allowing the Controller Defendants
to sell or donate stock without losing control of the Company, says
the Plaintiff.
SNAP INC. provides technology and social media services. The
company develops mobile camera application products and services
that allow users to send and receive photos, drawing, texts and
videos. Snap serves customers worldwide. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ned Weinberger, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1510
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone:(302) 573-2540
- and -
Christopher M. Foulds, Esq.
Joel Friedlander, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
1201 N. Market St., Suite 2200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 573-3500
TEVA PHARMA: Proceedings in Halman Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALMAN ALDUBI PROVIDENT
AND PENSION FUNDS LTD., v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04660-KSM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karen
Spencer Marston entered an order:
1. granting the Defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings Other
than Class Certification in Favor of the DOJ's Case;
2. staying all proceedings other than discovery and briefing
related to class certification pending the resolution of
United States v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Case No.
1:20-cv-11548-NMG (D. Mass) (the "DOJ Action");
3. directing the parties to provide a joint status update
informing the Court of the continuance within three days
of the continuance should the trial date in the DOJ Action
be continued;
4. directing the parties to provide a joint status update to
the Court within seven days of the resolution of the DOJ
Action; and
5. directing the parties to meet and confer and provide a
proposed schedule for discovery and briefing regarding
class certification no later than Monday, August 8, 2022.
Teva Pharmaceutical is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical
company with headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SCLca3 at no extra charge.[CC]
TG THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Notifies Investors of Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against TG Therapeutics, Inc. ("TG
Therapeutics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: TGTX) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
TG Therapeutics securities between January 15, 2020 and May 31,
2022, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are
encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tgtx.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) clinical trials revealed
significant concerns related to the benefit-risk ratio and overall
survival data of Ublituximab and Umbralisib; (2) accordingly, it
was unlikely that the Company would be able to obtain FDA approval
of the Umbralisib MZL/FL NDA, the U2 BLA, the U2 sNDA, or the
Ublituximab RMS BLA in their current forms; (3) as a result, the
Company had significantly overstated Ublituximab and Umbralisib's
clinical and/or commercial prospects; and (4) therefore, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/tgtx, or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Law Clerk and Client Relations Manager, Yael Nathanson of
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered
a loss in TG Therapeutics, you have until September 16, 2022, to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC represents investors in
securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits.
The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for
investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.
Contact:
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Nathanson
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]
TIKTOK INC: $92-Mil. Privacy Class Settlement Granted Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
MediaPost reports that a federal judge approved TikTok's $92
million settlement of claims that it violated a wide range of data
protection laws, including the federal video privacy law and an
Illinois law regarding biometric information.
The deal, accepted by U.S. District Court Judge John Lee in the
Northern District of Illinois, also requires the Chinese-owned
TikTok to restrict its data collection in the future.
Among other mandates, TikTok must refrain from using its app to
transmit data collect or store users' biometric data, geolocation
data and information in clipboards -- unless the company discloses
that it does so in its privacy policy. The deal also requires
TikTok to refrain from secretly sending users' information to
servers abroad.
The deal resolves litigation dating to 2019, when TikTok users
throughout the country brought a total of 21 class-action
complaints against the company. Those cases were eventually
consolidated into one matter, in federal court in Illinois.
Among other claims, the users alleged that TikTok, owned by the
Chinese company ByteDance, violated the federal Video Privacy
Protection Act -- a 1988 law that prohibits some companies from
disclosing personally identifiable information about the videos
people watch.
That claim was based on allegations that TikTok disclosed data
about users' video-viewing history, along with device identifiers
and advertising identifiers, to Facebook and Google.
The complaint also alleged that the company violated an Illinois
biometric privacy law that prohibits companies from collecting
people's faceprints without their consent.
TikTok users who submit claims are expected to receive an estimated
$27, except for Illinois users, who are expected to receive around
$163.
The deal is being finalized as TikTok faces increasing scrutiny by
lawmakers over claims that it transfers data to China.
Last month, Buzzfeed reported that China-based employees of TikTok
parent company ByteDance accessed data about U.S. users of the
service. Two days after that report came out, TikTok said it is
routing all U.S. traffic to Oracle servers, and plans to store all
U.S. users' data in this country.
Soon after that report came out, leaders of the Senate intelligence
committee asked the Federal Trade Commission to launch an
investigation.
Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr separately asked
Apple and Google to remove TikTok from their app stores due to its
"pattern of surreptitious data practices." [GN]
TIM HORTONS: Offers Coffee and Doughnut as Proposed Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Bundale of The Canadian Press reports that Tim Hortons has
reached a proposed settlement in multiple class action lawsuits
alleging the restaurant's mobile app violated customer privacy,
which would see the restaurant offer a free coffee and doughnut to
affected users.
The settlement, negotiated with the legal teams involved in the
lawsuits, still requires court approval.
The coffee and doughnut chain would also permanently delete any
geolocation information it may have collected between April 1, 2019
and Sept. 30, 2020, and direct third-party service providers to do
the same.
"We think that it's a favourable settlement because it offers
compensation that has a real value," said Joey Zukran, a lawyer
with the Montreal-based law firm LPC Avocat Inc., which filed the
class action in Quebec.
"Privacy cases across Canada are never guaranteed a win," he said.
"Here we have some form of guarantee, some form of recovery . . .
as opposed to uncertainty that could last."
It's unclear how many customers used the app during the 18-month
period ending Sept. 30, 2020, and would be eligible to receive a
free hot beverage and baked good.
Restaurant Brands International Inc., the parent company of Tim
Hortons, said in an investor presentation in May that it had four
million active users during the three months ended March 31, 2022.
"I think people who receive this will think it's paltry, but class
action settlements are often paltry for the end consumer," said
David Fraser, a privacy lawyer with McInnes Cooper in Halifax.
While the individual compensation may not seem like much, he said
given the number of people potentially involved "it may be
reasonable in aggregate."
Still, others may feel it's not high enough to "act as a
disincentive to further mischief," Fraser said.
"Any time you settle, there's going to be a compromise," he said,
adding that the case "reflects how weird privacy harms are."
"If you used that app and Tim Hortons collected your location
information without your adequate, informed consent but nothing has
happened with that information, you actually haven't suffered what
would be considered a tangible harm," Fraser said.
"You're trying to compensate for the feeling of ickiness, the
creepiness somebody might feel knowing that their information was
collected without their knowledge or consent."
The proposed settlement comes after an investigation by federal and
provincial privacy watchdogs found the mobile ordering app violated
the law by collecting vast amounts of location information from
customers.
In a report released last month, privacy commissioners said people
who downloaded the Tim Hortons app had their movements tracked and
recorded every few minutes -- even when the app was not open on
their phones.
The investigation was launched after National Post reporter James
McLeod obtained data showing the app on his phone had tracked his
location more than 2,700 times in less than five months.
In a statement, Tim Hortons said it's pleased to have reached a
proposed settlement in the four class action lawsuits filed in
Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario.
"All parties agree this is a fair settlement and we look forward to
the Superior Court of Quebec's decision on the proposal," the
company said in a statement.
"We are confident that pending the Quebec court's approval of the
settlement, the courts in British Columbia and Ontario will
recognize the settlement."
The company said the allegations raised in the class actions were
not proven in court and the settlement is not an admission of any
wrongdoing.
Tim Hortons said it would be emailing customers Friday to inform
them of the proposed settlement.
Tim Hortons said the retail value of a free hot beverage is $6.19
while the value of a baked good is $2.39, plus taxes, according to
court documents.
Customers would be provided with a credit for the items with a
coupon or through the Tim Hortons app, documents said.
Details on the distribution of the free hot beverage and baked good
would be provided if the court approves the settlement, Tim Hortons
said.
A hearing has been scheduled in a Quebec court on Sept. 6 to
consider the proposed settlement.[GN]
TORONTO-DOMINION: $31.5MM Settlement to be Heard on Sept. 21
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRETT HAWKES,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK, TD GROUP US HOLDINGS LLC,
TD BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, TD BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
STEPHEN BOYLE, TIM HOCKEY, BRIAN LEVITT, KAREN MAIDMENT, BHARAT
MASRANI, IRENE MILLER, JOSEPH MOGLIA, WILBUR PREZZANO, and THE
CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION,
Defendants.
C.A. No. 2020-0360-PAF
AMENDED SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF
STOCKHOLDER CLASS ACTION,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR
This notice is for all record holders and beneficial holders of TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation ("Ameritrade") common stock at any
point during the period from and including November 25, 2019, the
date of the definitive merger agreement between Ameritrade and The
Charles Schwab Corporation, through and including October 6, 2020,
the date the Merger closed (the "Settlement Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class
by definition, as set forth in the full Amended Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Stockholder Class Action, Settlement
Hearing, and Right to Appear (the "Amended Notice"), available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. Any capitalized terms used in
this Amended Summary Notice that are not otherwise defined in this
Amended Summary Notice shall have the meanings given to them in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement, and Release
dated March 25, 2022 (the "Stipulation").
PLEASE READ THIS AMENDED SUMMARY NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.
YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) plaintiff Brett Hawkes
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Settlement Class, and
(ii) defendants (a) The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its affiliates TD
Group US Holdings LLC ("TD Group US"), TD Bank USA, National
Association ("TD Bank USA"), and TD Bank, National Association ("TD
Bank N.A." and together with TD Group US and TD Bank USA, "TD
Bank"); (b) Tim Hockey, Brian Levitt, Karen Maidment, Bharat
Masrani, Irene Miller, Joseph Moglia, Wilbur Prezzano, and Stephen
Boyle (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and (c) The
Charles Schwab Corporation ("CSC," and together with TD Bank and
the Individual Defendants, "Defendants") have entered into a
proposed settlement for, among other consideration, $31,500,000
(the "Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation entered into between Plaintiff and Defendants dated
March 25, 2022, a copy of which is available at
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com. If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action.
Upon a request from the Parties, a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") was adjourned from the originally scheduled date of July
11, 2022 to the current September 21, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. date,
before The Honorable Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Vice Chancellor,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
New Castle County, Leonard L. Williams Justice Center, 500 North
King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, or by telephone or video
conference (in the discretion of the Court), to, among other
things: (i) determine whether the Action may be permanently
maintained as a non-opt out class action and whether the Settlement
Class should be certified permanently, for purposes of the
Settlement, pursuant to Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and
23(b)(2); (ii) determine whether Plaintiff may be permanently
designated as representative for the Settlement Class and
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel as counsel for the Settlement Class,
and whether Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel have
adequately represented the interests of the Settlement Class in the
Action; (iii) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the
terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class, and should be
approved by the Court; (iv) determine whether the Judgment,
substantially in the form attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation,
should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice as against
Defendants; (v) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should
therefore be approved; (vi) determine whether the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award,
should be approved; (vii) hear and rule on any objections to the
Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, the application by
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses, and/or Plaintiff's application for an incentive award;
and (viii) consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement.
Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes
to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person
or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the
Settlement website, www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Amended Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Amended
Notice by contacting the Settlement Administrator at Ameritrade
Merger Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91212,
Seattle, WA 98111, 1-888-964-2135. A copy of the Amended Notice can
also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com.
If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Eligible Closing Date Stockholders in accordance with the
proposed Plan of Allocation stated in the Amended Notice or such
other plan of allocation as is approved by the Court. Pursuant to
the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Eligible Closing Date
Stockholder will be eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the
Net Settlement Fund equal to the product of (i) the number of
shares held by the Eligible Closing Date Stockholder at the time
such shares were converted into the right to receive the Merger
Consideration in connection with the Closing of the Merger and (ii)
the "Per-Share Recovery" for the Settlement, which will be
determined by dividing the total amount of the Net Settlement Fund
by the total number of shares held by all of the Eligible Closing
Date Stockholders at the time such shares were converted into the
right to receive the Merger Consideration in connection with the
Closing of the Merger. As explained in further detail in the
Amended Notice at paragraphs 38-43, pursuant to the Plan of
Allocation, payments from the Net Settlement Fund to Eligible
Closing Date Stockholders will be made in the same manner in which
Eligible Closing Date Stockholders received the Merger
Consideration. Eligible Closing Date Stockholders do not have to
submit a claim form to receive a payment from the Settlement.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel's application for an
award attorneys' fees and expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, must be filed with the Register
in Chancery in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware and
delivered to Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than September 7, 2022, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Amended Notice.
Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this Amended Summary Notice. All questions about
this Amended Summary Notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
the Settlement Administrator or Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel.
Requests for the Amended Notice should be made to the Settlement
Administrator:
Ameritrade Merger Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91212
Seattle, WA 98111
1-888-964-2135
info@AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com
www.AmeritradeMergerLitigation.com
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to
Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel:
Peter B. Andrews
ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
Wilmington, Delaware 19807
1-302-504-4957 Ext. 1
pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
Edward Timlin
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
44th Floor
New York, New York 10020
1-800-380-8496
settlements@blbglaw.com
or
David Tejtel
FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
Bedford Hills, New York 10507
1-888-529-1108
dtejtel@fotpllc.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
TRADE DESK: Delaware Court Tosses Pension Fund Suit With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CITY PENSION FUND FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS
IN THE CITY OF MIAMI, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., LISE J. BUYER, KATHRYN
E. FALBERG, THOMAS FALK, JEFF GREEN, ERIC B. PALEY, DAVID R.
PICKLES, BLAKE GRAYSON, GOKUL RAJARAM, BRIAN J. STEMPECK, and DAVID
B. WELLS, Defendants, C.A. No. 2021-0560-PAF (Del. Ch.), Judge Paul
A. Fioravanti, Jr., of the Court of Chancery of Delaware grants the
Defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismisses the complaint with
prejudice.
The case involves a stockholder challenge to an amendment to the
certificate of incorporation of The Trade Desk, Inc. ("TTD") that
extended the duration of its dual-class stock structure. In effect,
the amendment prolonged voting control held by TTD's co-founder and
CEO, Jeffrey Green, who owns 98% of the Company's high-vote Class B
common stock. The Plaintiff alleges that Green, the Company's board
of directors, and certain officers breached their fiduciary duties
in approving and obtaining stockholder votes for the amendment.
The Plaintiff alleges that it has held Class A stock of TTD at all
relevant times.
TTD is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Ventura, California.
It is a technology company that markets "a software platform to
provide data-driven digital advertising campaigns." Green
co-founded the Company and has served as its President, CEO, and as
a director of the Company since 2009. He has also been chairman of
the Company's board of directors at all relevant times. David R.
Pickles is the other co-founder of TTD. He serves as TTD's Chief
Technology Officer. Blake Grayson has served as the Company's Chief
Financial Officer since 2019.
When it approved the challenged certificate amendment, the TTD
board of directors consisted of Green and seven outside directors:
Director Defendants Lise J. Buyer, Gokul Rajaram, Kathryn E.
Falberg, David B. Wells, Thomas Falk, Eric B. Paley, and Brian J.
Stempec. Buyer, Rajaram, and Wells served on a special committee of
the TTD board that negotiated the certificate amendment with Green
and recommended that the Board approve it.
TTD has two classes of common stock. The Company's Class A common
stock trades publicly on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker
symbol "TTD" and entitles its holder to one vote per share. The
Company's Class B common stock, which is not publicly traded, is
entitled to 20 votes per share. This dual-class common stock
structure was created in conjunction with the Company's initial
public offering in 2016. The original Class B stockholders included
Green, members of management, and certain venture capital investors
that had supported the Company's growth as a private entity. Of the
33.4 million Class B shares originally issued, Green received
approximately 8.9 million. Since the IPO, the Class B stockholders
have controlled the TTD.
By March 2020, the number of Class B shares outstanding had
declined to approximately 5.2 million, with Green owning 97.6% of
them. When added to the Class A shares that he beneficially owned,
Green at that time controlled approximately 55% of the combined
voting power of the outstanding Class A and Class B common stock.
The Company's amended and restated certificate of incorporation
restricts the ownership of Class B common stock to its original
owners and "Permitted Transferees" as defined in the Certificate.
If a Class B share is transferred to someone other than a Permitted
Transferee, it is automatically converted into Class A common stock
on a 1-for-1 basis.
The Certificate also provides for the elimination of the Class B
Stock once "the number of outstanding shares of Class B Common
Stock represent less than 10% of the aggregate number of shares of
the then outstanding Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock"
("Dilution Trigger"). Once the Dilution Trigger is tripped, each
share of Class B common stock is automatically converted into Class
A common stock on a 1-for-1 basis, and the Class B stock is
canceled.
On Oct. 27, 2020, the Company filed with the SEC a notice of
special meeting of stockholders for Dec. 7, 2020 and a Definitive
Proxy Statement to solicit stockholder votes in favor of the
proposed transaction. When the date of the Special Meeting arrived
on Dec. 7, 2020 there was insufficient stockholder support to
approve the Dilution Trigger Amendment. As a result, the Company
adjourned the Special Meeting to enable proponents additional time
to garner more votes in favor of the transaction. On Dec. 22, 2020,
the Company reconvened the Special Meeting, where the Dilution
Trigger Amendment was approved, with 52% of the unaffiliated shares
voting in favor.
Once the Dilution Trigger Amendment had been approved, Green
resumed disposing of Class B shares. Between Dec. 24, 2020, and
April 19, 2021, he converted 544,139 Class B shares into Class A
shares and sold them for aggregate proceeds of $435,481,252. On
Dec. 3, 2020, a few days before the Special Meeting, TTD's
Compensation Committee, which includes Wells and Rajaram,
considered a stock option grant to Green in his capacity as TTD's
CEO. A presentation from the committee's compensation advisor,
Compensia, outlined potential grant options including an award
amounting to 5% of the Company's equity. The Plaintiff complains
that stockholders were not aware at this time of these discussions
regarding this possible award.
Almost a year later, on Oct. 8, 2021, the Compensation Committee
recommended and the Board approved a stock option grant to Green.
Under the 2021 Grant terms, Green may receive options allowing him
to purchase up to 19.2 million shares of Class A common stock, at
an exercise price of $68.29 per share, if specified target goals
are achieved and other vesting conditions are satisfied. This
option grant only becomes exercisable and vested in eight tranches
over a ten-year term if certain stock price achievements are met.
On June 28, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its Complaint asserting
breach of fiduciary duty claims against Green in his capacity as a
controlling stockholder (Count I), the Officer Defendants (Count
II), and the Director Defendants (Count III). Each claim is based
on the respective Defendants' actions "imposing the unfair Trigger
Amendment on Trade Desk and the Company's public stockholders" and
"failing to disclose to stockholders Green's desire to sell Trade
Desk shares and the date of the anticipated sunset of the dual
class capitalization structure."
On Aug. 27, 2021, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint
pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). After the parties
filed opening and answering briefs, the Plaintiff sought leave to
supplement the Complaint, which the Court granted as unopposed. The
Plaintiff filed its Verified Supplement to the Complaint on Nov.
29, 2021. On Feb. 1, 2022, the Defendants moved to dismiss the
Complaint, as supplemented. Following full briefing, the Court held
oral argument on these motions on April 11, 2021.
There is no dispute that the amendment was an interested
transaction involving a controlling stockholder, which is
presumptively subject to review under the exacting entire fairness
standard. The Defendants' primary argument in support of their
motions is that the transaction complied with the framework set
forth in Kahn v. M & F Worldwide Corp., 88 A.3d 635 (Del. 2014)
("MFW"), thus subjecting the transaction to business judgment
review rather than the entire fairness standard.
In the seminal case of MFW, the Delaware Supreme Court endorsed a
framework that would alter the standard of review in a conflicted
controlling stockholder transaction from entire fairness to the
more lenient business judgment standard. To avoid entire fairness
scrutiny through this doctrinal escape hatch, the following
conditions must be met: (i) the controller conditions the
procession of the transaction on the approval of both a Special
Committee and a majority of the minority stockholders; (ii) the
Special Committee is independent; (iii) the Special Committee is
empowered to freely select its own advisors and to say no
definitively; (iv) the Special Committee meets its duty of care in
negotiating a fair price; (v) the vote of the minority is informed;
and (vi) there is no coercion of the minority.
If the Defendants satisfy MFW, then the transaction will be subject
to business judgment review. But if the Plaintiff can plead a
reasonably conceivable set of facts showing that any one of the
enumerated conditions is not satisfied, then, the entire fairness
standard governs.
Although MFW was decided at the summary judgment stage and involved
a freeze-out merger, the MFW framework is not limited to those
scenarios. The Court of Chancery has applied MFW at the motion to
dismiss stage and in transactions other than freeze-out mergers.
The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants have not satisfied the
elements of MFW; it does not contend it is otherwise inapplicable.
It alleges that the Defendants have failed to satisfy elements (ii)
and (v) of the MFW framework. It argues that the Special Committee
was not independent and that the stockholder vote was uninformed.
If it is reasonably conceivable under the well-pleaded facts of the
Complaint and Supplement that either element is not satisfied, then
the Defendants will be unable to benefit from the deferential
business judgment standard of review.
Judge Fioravanti opines that the Defendants have satisfied MFW. He
opines that (i) the Complaint lacks well-pleaded allegations
creating a reasonable inference undermining Company's Compensation
Committee's independence while serving on the Special Committee;
and (ii) the six alleged omissions, individually and collectively,
did not result in an uninformed stockholder vote on the Dilution
Trigger Amendment.
Judge Fioravanti concludes that the Plaintiff has failed to plead
facts sufficient to challenge the application of the MFW framework.
Thus, the Dilution Trigger Amendment is subject to the business
judgment rule." Under the version of the business judgment rule
earned by proper implementation of the MFW framework, only a
well-pleaded claim for waste may survive. The Plaintiff has not
pleaded a claim for waste and has made no effort to overcome the
business judgment rule.
Thus, the transaction is subject to review under the business
judgment standard, and the Complaint must be dismissed.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Memorandum Opinion is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n6fau35 from Leagle.com.
Gregory V. Varallo -- Greg.Varallo@blbglaw.com -- Andrew E.
Blumberg -- andrew.blumberg@blbglaw.com -- Daniel E. Meyer --
Daniel.Meyer@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch, Reuben Gottlieb, Jeroen
van Kwawegen, BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP, New York,
New York; Jeremy Friedman, David Tejtel, Julie Palley, FRIEDMAN
OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC, Bedford Hills, New York; Attorneys for
Plaintiff City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in
the City of Miami.
William M. Lafferty -- wlafferty@morrisnichols.com -- Ryan D.
Stottmann -- rstottmann@morrisnichols.com -- Sabrina Hendershot --
shendershot@morrisnichols.com -- MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Attorneys for Defendants Lise J. Buyer,
Gokul Rajaram, and David B. Wells.
Peter J. Walsh, Jr. -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- Jacqueline A.
Rogers -- jrogers@potteranderson.com -- Abraham C. Schneider --
aschneider@potteranderson.com --POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Matthew Rawlinson, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP,
Menlo Park, California; Colleen Smith, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, San
Diego, California; Kristin Murphy, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, Costa
Mesa, California; Attorneys for Defendants The Trade Desk, Inc.,
Kathryn E. Falberg, Thomas Falk, Blake Grayson, Eric B. Paley,
David R. Pickles, and Brian J. Stempeck.
Brad D. Sorrels , Shannon E. German, Benjamin M. Potts, WILSON
SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., Wilmington, Delaware; David J.
Berger, Steven M. Guggenheim, WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
P.C., Palo Alto, California; S. Toni Wormald, WILSON SONSINI
GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C., San Francisco, California; Attorneys for
Defendant Jeff Green.
TRANSUNION LLC: Class-Action Settlement Approved in Ramirez Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reports that a California district court has
granted the plaintiff's motion seeking approval of a class-action
settlement in TransUnion v. Ramirez after the U.S. Supreme Court
issued a ruling regarding the issue of Article III standing last
June.
A copy of the motion is available at
https://www.acainternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/transunion-ramirez-julyopinion.pdf
How Did We Get Here?
Ramirez filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of himself and a
putative class alleging that over a six-month period in 2011,
TransUnion violated three FCRA requirements providing that credit
reporting agencies (CRAs) must:
-- Establish "reasonable procedures" to ensure the "maximum
possible accuracy" of information provided about consumers under 15
U.S.C. Section 1681e(b);
-- "Clearly and accurately" disclose "all information in the
consumers file at the time of [a] request" under Section 1681g(a),
and
-- Provide a statement of consumer rights with each such
disclosure under Section 1681g(c).
After a jury returned a verdict in the Ramirez' favor, TransUnion
appealed, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict
except for the punitive damages. The parties appealed again.
The case implicates issues of Article III standing and the
appropriateness of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 in class-action litigation. ACA filed an amicus brief
supporting TransUnion for the Supreme Court's consideration in the
case.
The key holding by the Supreme Court in its 2021 opinion was that
of the original 8,185 class members, "the 6,332 class members whose
credit reports were not provided to third-party businesses did not
suffer a concrete harm and thus do not have standing as to the
reasonable-procedures claim."
On the other hand, the court held that the 1,853 class members for
whom TransUnion provided credit reports to a third-party had
Article III standing because they suffered an injury to their
reputation.
Noting that "standing is not dispensed in gross," the court
emphasized that it is the plaintiff's burden to establish that each
class member has Article III standing in order to recover
individual damages.
After issuing its decision, the U.S. Supreme court sent the case
back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California for further proceedings.
The parties in the case participated in mediation and reached a
class-wide settlement. Ramirez then filed a motion seeking the
district court's approval of the proposed terms of the settlement.
The court granted Ramirez's motion.
Settlement Terms
TransUnion will establish a settlement fund for the class under the
agreement approved by the court, and the settlement administrator
will establish a website and toll-free phone number for updates.
The settlement agreement narrows the class to those individuals
whom TransUnion either concedes had Office of Foreign Assets
Control (OFAC) data provided about them to a third party or those
who submit a claim form and demonstrate that they had OFAC data
provided to a third party.
The OFAC Name Screen Alert or OFAC Alert is a service TransUnion
provides to its customers that identifies persons whose names match
individuals -- known as Specially Designated Nationals -- on the
U.S. on the government's list of terrorists, drug traffickers, and
others with whom Americans are prohibited from doing business,
according to the court's opinion and background on the case.
These modifications to the class are directly in response to the
Supreme Court's order, which held that only "class members whose
credit reports were provided to third-party businesses suffered a
concrete harm and thus have standing as to the
reasonable-procedures claim" and that no "class members other than
the named plaintiff Ramirez suffered a concrete harm" for purposes
of the disclosure claims.
Attorneys' Fees
There are two options for attorneys' fees in a class-action
settlement with a settlement fund for all the class members.
Courts may employ either the lodestar method (calculated by
multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably
expended on by a reasonable hourly rate for the region and for the
experience of the lawyer) or the percentage-of-recovery method to
determine whether the requested fees are reasonable.
The 9th Circuit has established a benchmark of 25% of the
settlement fund for attorneys' fees calculations under the latter
method. The settlement agreement provides for a maximum award of
$4.5 million to class counsel, which is half of the settlement
amount.
Motions for attorneys' fees are due by Oct. 2 and a final approval
hearing for the settlement will be Dec. 15.
ACA's Take
The Supreme Court's decision in TransUnion provides helpful
guidance regarding what constitutes a concrete harm for the
purposes of determining whether a plaintiff has Article III
standing. The class-action proceedings show further implications of
the case and reenforce the fact that Article III standing continues
to be a hot issue in the courts as consumers, collectors, and their
attorneys endeavor to apply the Supreme Court's ruling to the
situations before them. [GN]
TRICIDA INC: Court Narrows Claims in Pardi Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL PARDI, et al., Plaintiffs v. TRICIDA, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00076-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
The lawsuit is a putative securities class action lawsuit involving
allegations of material misrepresentations and omissions. Defendant
Tricida is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company incorporated
in Delaware with principal executive offices in South San
Francisco, California. Defendant Gerrit Klaerner is Tricida's CEO
and President. Lead Plaintiff Jeffrey Fiore alleges that he was
damaged by Tricida and Klaerner's misrepresentations and omissions
because he "purchased Tricida common stock at artificially inflated
prices."
In May 2018, Tricida completed its Phase 3 clinical trial for
veverimer, a drug intended to slow the progression of chronic
kidney disease ("CKD") through treatment of metabolic acidosis.
Following the trial results, Tricida held its initial public
offering ("IPO") on June 28, 2018 and began trading that same day
on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. In August 2019, it submitted
its New Drug Application ("NDA") for veverimer to the United States
Food and Drug Administration under the FDA's accelerated approval
program. The FAD accepted Tricida's NDA two months later.
Beginning in May 2020, Tricida began to receive indications from
the FDA that there were issues with its NDA. On July 15, 2020,
Tricida issued a press release stating that the FDA had notified it
that the agency had "identified deficiencies that preclude
discussion of labeling and post-marketing requirements/commitments
at this time." It issued another press release on Aug. 24, 2020
stating that it had received a Complete Response Letter from the
FDA on Aug. 21, 2020 explaining that its Phase 3 trial alone could
not demonstrate the efficacy of veverimer. The FDA further stated
that it required additional data regarding the magnitude and
durability of veverimer's treatment effect and on the applicability
of that effect to the U.S. population. Two months later, on Oct.
29, 2020, Tricida announced that the FDA had informed it that the
FDA was "unlikely to rely solely on serum bicarbonate data for
determination of efficacy" and would "require evidence of
veverimer's effect on CKD progression from a near-term interim
analysis of the VALOR-CKD trial for approval under the Accelerated
Approval Program." Finally, on Feb. 25, 2021, Tricida announced
that the FDA had denied the appeal of its NDA denial.
In January 2021, Plaintiff Pardi filed this lawsuit asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. In April 2021, the Court
appointed Fiore as the Lead Plaintiff and Block & Leviton LLP as
the Lead Counsel.
On June 1, 2021, Fiore filed an amended complaint against
Defendants Tricida and Klaerner. He seeks to represent "a class
consisting of all purchasers of the common stock of Tricida" from
June 28, 2018 through Feb. 25, 2021. He alleges that, starting with
the June 28, 2018 registration statement and prospectus
accompanying Tricida's IPO and ending with Tricida's Feb. 25, 2021
press release, the Defendants made false or misleading statements
either intentionally or with deliberate recklessness.
Mr. Fiore alleges two causes of action: (1) a violation of Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants;
and (2) a violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against
Defendant Klaerner. The Defendants move to dismiss the claims on
two grounds: (1) the challenged statements were not materially
false or misleading; and (2) Fiore fails to adequately plead facts
giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.
Before turning to the motion to dismiss, Judge Gilliam examines the
Defendants' request for judicial notice. The Defendants ask the
Court to take judicial notice of 31 exhibits -- request for
judicial notice of 23 exhibits and supplemental request for
judicial notice of 8 exhibits). They argue that the exhibits are
subject to the Court's consideration under the doctrines of
judicial notice and incorporation by reference.
Exhibits 1-5, 7-13, and Reply Exhibit 2 are public documents filed
with the SEC. Exhibit 20 is an FDA Advisory Committee Calendar
document publicly posted by the FDA. Reply Exhibits 5, 7, and 8 are
guidance documents publicly posted by the FDA. Exhibits 21-24 and
Reply Exhibit 6 are documents publicly posted by the National
Institutes of Health. All are public documents "the accuracy of
which is not reasonably subject to dispute."
Mr. Fiore opposes judicial notice of Exhibits 21-24 because he
contends that the Defendants seek judicial notice "for the purpose
of demonstrating that investors knew this information contradicted
or explained Defendants' misleading SEC statements on this
subject." But the Ninth Circuit has explained that courts may take
judicial notice of documents to show "that the market was aware of
the information contained" in those documents, citing Heliotrope
Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 (9th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, Judge Gilliam takes notice of Exhibits 1-5, 7-13,
20-24, and Reply Exhibits 2, 5-8. The Court is not taking notice of
the truth of any of the facts asserted.
Exhibits 14, 15, and 17, and Reply Exhibit 1 are incorporated by
reference by Fiore's complaint because the complaint explicitly and
repeatedly refers to excerpts of these exhibits to support its
claims. Fiore does not oppose judicial notice of these documents.
Accordingly, Judge Gilliam takes notice of Exhibits 14, 15, and 17,
and Reply Exhibit 1. Again, the Court does not need to assume the
truth of any of the facts asserted.
Exhibit 16 is a Jan. 17, 2019 Tricida press release. Fiore does not
oppose notice of this document. Accordingly, Judge Gilliam takes
notice of Exhibit 16 to the same extent described.
Finally, the Defendants seek judicial notice of Exhibits 18-19 and
Reply Exhibits 3-4. Each exhibit is a paper from the scientific
journal The Lancet. The Defendants offer these exhibits to support
the premise that certain allegedly omitted information was
disclosed in the market. Judge Gilliam explains that the Court may
take judicial notice of publications introduced to indicate what
was in the public realm at the time, but it may not take judicial
notice as to whether the contents of those articles were in fact
true. Accordingly, he takes notice of Exhibits 18-19 and Reply
Exhibits 3-4, again without taking notice of the truth of the facts
asserted.
Judge Gilliam now turns to the motion to dismiss. First, the
Defendants challenge Fiore's claims that their statements
concerning Tricida's Phase 3 clinical trial for veverimer were
false or misleading. To adequately allege misleading statements and
omissions, a plaintiff must "specify each statement alleged to have
been misleading and the reason or reasons why the statement is
misleading."
Judge Gilliam finds that (i) Fiore sufficiently pleads that the
Defendants' statements characterizing their Phase 3 trials as
conducted in "Europe" were misleading; (ii) the Defendants'
"truth-on-the-market" defense cannot be a proper basis for
dismissal at this stage; (iii) Fiore plausibly alleges that the
Defendants' risk disclosures were misleading due to their omission
of the Eastern European trial locations; (iv) Fiore plausibly
alleges that the Defendants' use of the term "multicenter" was
misleading because it "would give a reasonable investor the
impression of a state of affairs that differed in a material way
from the one that actually existed"; (v) Fiore has not adequately
alleged that Klaerner's characterization of the program was
misleading; (vi) there are no allegations supporting the inference
that a trial with 1,600 randomized patients necessarily would be
unable to reach the intended power level so as to make the
Defendants' statements false or misleading; and (vii) Fiore has
sufficiently alleged that Klaerner's May 7 statement was
misleading.
Judge Gilliam next considers whether Fiore has sufficiently alleged
scienter. He only addresses scienter as to the statements that
Fiore has adequately alleged to have been material
misrepresentations or omissions. As a threshold matter, he finds
inadequate a number of Fiore's alleged bases for inferring
scienter.
First, Judge Gilliam rejects Fiore's assertion that he has pled
scienter because the Defendants were motivated to mislead the
market into believing that the FDA would approve veverimer because
the Defendants otherwise would have run out of money. Fiore has not
shown that the timing of Klaerner's stock sales was unusual or
suspicious. There are no allegations supporting the required
"strong inference" that Defendants intended to mislead or were
deliberately reckless in characterizing the trial location as
"Europe" generally.
Second, Fiore does not plausibly allege scienter with respect to
the Defendants' (i) statements between June 5, 2018 and March 2,
2020 that Tricida conducted its Phase 3 trials in "Europe," and
(ii) risk disclosures about their study's use of foreign clinical
data. Fiore fails to sufficiently allege scienter because, like the
statements above, there are no allegations supporting the "strong
inference" that Defendants intended to mislead or were deliberately
reckless in disclosing a generalized risk that the FDA could reject
foreign clinical data submitted in an NDA. And there are no
allegations indicating that Defendants' risk disclosures met the
high "so obvious" standard such that Defendants would had to have
known that their disclosures would be misleading.
Third, Judge Gilliam concludes that Fiore does not plausibly allege
scienter with respect to the Defendants' statements describing
their Phase 3 trial as "multicenter." Based upon the allegations in
the complaint, he cannot conclude that the inference that
Defendants acted with deliberate recklessness or intent to mislead
investors is "at least as compelling" as the inference that they
did not.
Lastly, Judge Gilliam concludes that Fiore has plausibly alleged
scienter with respect to Klaerner's statements regarding the May 1,
2020 late-cycle meeting. The Defendants could have remained
altogether silent about the review issues they discussed with the
FDA. But they could not disclose only one review issue discussed
with the FDA and conclude that they were thus confident about their
chances for approval, while omitting the other review issue they
knew the FDA was concerned about. Hence, Fiore's allegations viewed
in toto create a "strong inference" of scienter.
Based on the foregoing, Judge Gilliam grants the Defendants' motion
with leave to amend as to Fiore's claim based on (i) statements
about the location of the Phase 3 TRCA-301/TRCA-301E trial sites,
based on failure to adequately plead scienter; (ii) risk
disclosures about the location of the Phase 3 TRCA-301/TRCA-301E
trial sites, based on failure to adequately plead scienter; (iii)
statements about the multicenter nature of the Phase 3
TRCA-301/TRCA-301E trial, based on failure to adequately plead
scienter; (iv) statements about veverimer's prospects for FDA
Accelerated Approval during a June 12, 2019 presentation, based on
failure to plead falsity; (v) statements about the VALOR-CKD trial
design, based on failure to plead falsity; and (vi) a statement
about cancelling an advisory committee meeting with the FDA due to
COVID-19, based on failure to plead falsity.
Judge Gilliam denies the Defendants' motion as to Fiore's claim
based on statements about the May 1, 2020 late-cycle meeting.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3u4xk62e from Leagle.com.
UNITED STATES: Court Halts Vaccine Mandate vs. Religious Objectors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Blankley, writing for The Center Square, reports that a
federal court in Ohio entered a nationwide preliminary injunction
prohibiting the U.S. Air Force from enforcing its COVID-19 vaccine
mandate against religious objectors.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio's order
in Doster v. Kendall remains effective until a full trial is held.
It follows the temporary restraining order the court issued July 14
when it granted class action status for all Air Force plaintiffs
nationwide. Class status protects all active-duty Airmen, active
reserve, National Guard, Air Force Academy cadets, the Air Force
Reserve Command, and Space Force members.
In their 16-page filing, attorneys for the government argued
blocking the Air Force from punishing the unvaccinated "would
interfere with ongoing legal proceedings and would otherwise be
improper, particularly in light of significant new developments."
Lt. Gen. Kevin Schneider, director of staff for the Air Force's
headquarters, said in a declaration that the unvaccinated were "at
a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 and substantially more likely
to develop severe symptoms resulting in hospitalization or death."
Exempting those with religious exemptions "would pose a significant
and unprecedented risk to military readiness and our ability to
defend the nation."
Judge Matthews McFarland disagreed.
"The defense has failed to raise any persuasive arguments for why
the court should not extend the preliminary injunction issued on
March 31, 2022 to cover the Class Members," McFarland ruled.
Government attorneys also argued the federal court didn't have
jurisdiction to rule on military decisions to which McFarland said,
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial
department to say what the law is," citing the landmark Supreme
Court 1803 ruling in Marbury v. Madison.
McFarland issued his ruling as members of the U.S. Coast Guard
represented by Liberty Counsel requested a federal judge in Florida
to grant them class action status, and after Thomas More Society
attorneys won the first preliminary injunction in the U.S. against
the Air Force vaccine mandate on behalf of one officer in a case
filed in Georgia.
In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Tilman Self, III, issued a
blistering rebuke of the Air Force's refusal to grant religious
exemptions. He described how the plaintiff's chain of command
justified denying religious exemptions as: "Your religious beliefs
are sincere, it's just not compatible with military service."
"That's about as blunt as it gets," Self wrote. "True, he
undoubtedly spoke for himself, but when considering the Air Force's
abysmal record regarding religious accommodations requests, it
turns out he was dead on target."
He noted that the Air Force's percentage of granting religious
exemptions was 0.24%.
The Ohio ruling was a "big win for religious freedom," Thomas More
Society Senior Counsel Stephen Crampton said. "The vaccine mandates
have been a disaster for the country, for the military, and
especially for those with deeply held religious convictions. The
Air Force's insistence on forcing all of its members to take an
experimental injection – one which has been proven again and
again not to prevent infection – over the sincere objections of
people of faith, is both unconscionable and unconstitutional."
In Florida, Liberty Counsel filed an amended complaint in federal
court with Judge Steven Merryday seeking class action relief for
plaintiffs who currently serve in the U.S. Coast Guard.
The plaintiffs have refused "to receive an injection that violates
their sincerely held religious beliefs since all of the COVID shots
are associated with aborted fetal cells," Liberty Counsel said,
noting they've been "unlawfully refused any religious exemption or
accommodation." It also said that disciplinary actions have already
begun, negatively impacting those whose religious exemption
requests were denied.
"Our courageous Coast Guard heroes have taken an oath to uphold the
Constitution and defend this country from enemies both foreign and
domestic," Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver said.
"Their constitutional rights are not quarantined while they are
defending this nation. The Department of Defense continues to
violate the law and ignore their religious freedom. This
lawlessness must end."
Court rulings continue to be issued in favor of those in the
military fighting the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Secretary
of Defense Lloyd Austin maintains the mandate is necessary for
military preparedness. Those who don't comply face discharge, court
martial, other disciplinary procedures and consequences.
In another case Liberty Counsel's filed, Navy SEAL v. Austin,
Staver argues those whose religious accommodation requests were
denied face mental anguish and "cruel and unusual punishment."
A declaration filed in the case in April revealed "shocking
evidence of the abuse, intimidation and retaliation military
members are facing over the Biden shot mandate," including service
members who've committed suicide, Staver said. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Quinto Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled KRYSTAL QUINTO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, Case No. 22CV012970, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July
30, 2022.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 4:22-cv-04428 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act, the Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, and the California's Constitutional right to
privacy through its routine online practices.
The Regents of The University of California is the governing board
of the University of California. [BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Teresa C. Chow, Esq.
Alexander Vitruk, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: tchow@bakerlaw.com
avitruk@bakerlaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Suit Removed to Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reports that the University of
Southern California has transferred a class action lawsuit over
late fees it charges when students don't pay for classes by the
deadline it imposes.
The lawsuit says the fees aren't based on any financial harm USC
suffers as a result of payment after its deadlines. Lawyers at
Bursor & Fisher filed the suit in July 2020 in Los Angeles Superior
Court, but USC decided on July 18, 2022, to remove it to Los
Angeles federal court.
The fees start at $100 for payment within the first week after the
deadline and rise to $300 for payments made within the third week
or later. The suit alleged violations of laws regarding unlawful
penalties and unlawful forfeitures, as well as violation of the
California Unfair Competition Law.
Parts of USC's demurrer to the first complaint were granted in
state court, and an amended complaint was entered April 14, 2021. A
second amended complaint came less than a month later.
A June 22 motion for class certification changing the definition of
the proposed class from Californians to students nationwide
prompted USC to remove the case to federal court. [GN]
WALGREEN CO: $105MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Oct. 7
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
WASHTENAW COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
WALGREEN CO. et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-3187
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO:
All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Walgreen Co. ("Walgreens") common stock between April 17, 2014 and
August 5, 2014, inclusive, and were damaged thereby ("Class").
Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class, as set
forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 23,
2022 ("Stipulation") and the Settlement Notice described below
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY;
YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A
CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.
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 Illinois ("Court"), that
Court-appointed Class Representative Industriens Pensionsforsikring
A/S ("Class Representative"), on behalf of itself and the Class in
the above-captioned securities class action ("Action"), has reached
a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants Walgreens,
Gregory D. Wasson, and Wade D. Miquelon (collectively,
"Defendants"), for $105,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will
resolve all claims in the Action ("Settlement").
A hearing will be held on October 7, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman, United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Illinois, either in person in
Courtroom 1241 of the Everett McKinley Dirksen United States
Courthouse, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604, or by
video or telephonic conference as the Court may order, to determine
whether: (i) the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Defendants, and the releases specified and
described in the Stipulation (and in the Settlement Notice
described below) should be entered; (iii) the proposed Plan of
Allocation for distributing the net proceeds of the Settlement
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) Class Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses should be
approved.
If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary
of the information contained in the detailed Notice of (I) Proposed
Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses ("Settlement Notice"). You
may obtain a copy of the Settlement Notice, along with the Claim
Form, on the website for the Action,
www.WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain a copy
of the Settlement Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims
Administrator by mail at Walgreens Securities Litigation, c/o A.B.
Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173092, Milwaukee, WI 53217; by calling
toll-free 1-866-963-9976; or by sending an email to
info@WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com.
If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a
payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form
postmarked (if mailed), or online via
www.WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than November 5,
2022, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim
Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound
by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to
Class Counsel and representative Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than September 16, 2022, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Because notice
was previously issued to the Class in connection with class
certification, providing Class Members with the opportunity to
exclude themselves from the Class at that time, the Court has
exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity for
Class Members to request exclusion in connection with the
settlement proceedings, particularly given that the statute of
repose on any claims being released in connection with the
Settlement has run and thus, anyone attempting to exclude
themselves would not be able to bring any such claims.
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this
notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class
Counsel.
Requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim Form should be made to
the Claims Administrator:
Walgreens Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173092
Milwaukee, WI 53217
1-866-963-9976
info@WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.WalgreensSecuritiesLitigation.com
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
WEBER INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, captioned Michalski v. Weber Inc.,
et al., Case No. 22-cv-3966, on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired Weber Inc. ("Weber" or the
"Company") (NYSE: WEBR) Class A common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus
(collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection
with the Company's August 2021 initial public offering ("IPO" or
the "Offering"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from this
notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
If you suffered a loss on your Weber investments or would like to
inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss
under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact
information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/weber-inc/. You can also
contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit
our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.
On or about August 6, 2021, the Company completed its IPO, selling
approximately 17,857,143 shares of Class A common stock at a price
of $14.00 per share.
On July 25, 2022, before the market opened, Weber announced its
preliminary third quarter 2022 financial results, including net
sales between $525 million and $530 million. The Company expected
to report a net loss, noting that "[p]rofitability was negatively
impacted by" several factors, including "promotional activity to
enhance retail sell through." Additionally, Weber announced that
Chris Scherzinger "is departing" from his roles as Chief Executive
Officer and director of the Company.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $1.21 per share, or
16%, to close at $6.30 per share on July 25, 2022, on unusually
heavy trading volume.
By the commencement of this action, the Company's stock was trading
as low as $6.25 per share, a nearly 55% decline from the $14 per
share IPO price.
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
Weber was reasonably likely to implement price increases; (2) that,
as a result, consumer demand for Weber's products was reasonably
likely to decrease; (3) that, due to the resulting inventory
buildup, Weber was reasonably likely to run promotions to "enhance
retail sell through"; (4) that the foregoing would adversely impact
Weber's financial results; and (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Weber Class A common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO, you may move the Court no
later than 60 days from this notice to ask the Court to appoint you
as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take
any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or
take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you
wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Contact:
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles
Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com [GN]
WEST VIRGINIA: Fain Wins Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FAIN, SHAUNTAE
ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. WILLIAM CROUCH, in his official capacity as Cabinet
Secretary of the West Virginia Department of Health and Human
Resources; CYNTHIA BEANE, in her official capacity as Commissioner
for the West Virginia Bureau for Medical Services; WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES, BUREAU FOR MEDICAL
SERVICES, Case No. 3:20-cv-00740 (S.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert
c. chambers entered an order:
1. granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;
2. directing the Clerk to send a copy of the Order to counsel
of record and any unrepresented parties.
The Plaintiffs in this case are transgender West Virginian Medicaid
participants. The Plaintiff Christopher Fain is a 46-year-old
transgender man enrolled in West Virginia Medicaid and is seeking
surgical treatment for his gender dysphoria diagnosis. The
Plaintiff Shauntae Anderson is a 45-year-old transgender woman
enrolled in West Virginia Medicaid and is also seeking the surgical
treatment for her gender dysphoria.
The proposed class in this class exceeds 600 people annually, as
686 participants in the West Virginia Medicaid Program submitted at
least one claim with a diagnosis for gender dysphoria or gender
incongruence in 2021.
The West Virginia Medicaid Program provides a blanket exclusion for
"transsexual surgery," stating that such a service is not covered
"regardless of medical necessity." Thus, any transgender Medicaid
participant in West Virginia who may be diagnosed with gender
dysphoria is barred from coverage for the surgical treatment of
this diagnosis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Aug. 2, 2022 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BSddV3 at no extra charge.[CC]
ZIONS BANCORP: Class Settlement in Evans Suit Wins Prelim. Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RONALD C. EVANS, JOAN M. EVANS, DENNIS TREADAWAY, and
all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ZIONS BANCORPORATION,
N.A., dba California Bank and Trust, Defendant. ZIONS
BANCORPORATION, N.A., Third-Party Plaintiff v. JTS, LARRY CARTER,
JACK SWEIGART AND BRISTOL INSURANCE, Third-Party Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-01123 WBS DB (E.D. Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants
the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action
settlement.
The Plaintiffs brought the putative class action against Defendant
Zions, doing business as California Bank and Trust ("CB&T"),
asserting claims based on CB&T's alleged acquiescence in and
provision of support for a fraud scheme perpetrated by one of its
clients against putative class members.
In 2014, Deepal Wannakuwatte admitted to defrauding lenders to a
fraudulent medical supply business he had operated, International
Manufacturing Group, Inc. ("IMG"), via a Ponzi scheme he had
operated since 2002, and pled guilty to wire fraud. During the
scheme, Wannakuwatte and IMG banked primarily at CB&T, which issued
several loans to the scheme and to Wannakuwatte.
The Plaintiffs allege that CB&T discovered the fraud by 2009 and
stopped lending to Wannakuwatte and IMG but retained IMG as a
banking client. They further allege that even after that point,
CB&T officials continued to help facilitate the scheme by offering
extensions on IMG's loan payments and overlooking defaults.
The Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of
investors and lenders who were defrauded by Wannakuwatte and IMG,
based on CB&T's alleged complicity in the Ponzi scheme. They now
seek preliminary approval of the parties' stipulated class-wide
settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).
The proposed class is defined as follows: All Net Losers, including
assignees, but excluding Net Losers who have already released the
Bank from IMG-related claims, and also excluding any governmental
entities, any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over
this matter, and the members of his or her immediate family, the
Bank, along with its corporate parents, subsidiaries and/or
affiliates, successors, and attorneys of any excluded Person or
entity referenced above, and any Person acting on behalf of any
excluded Person or entity referenced.
Although the counsel for the Plaintiffs estimates that the class'
total claims could be worth approximately $55 million, he states
that CB&T "has legitimate defenses to those claims" which "could
reduce or even eliminate Plaintiffs' recovery at trial." The
proposed $14 million settlement is more than 25% of that best-case
recovery.
The settlement agreement provides that the Plaintiffs' counsel will
seek a fee award of up to 30% of the net settlement payment
remaining after approved litigation costs, costs for the claims
administrator, and incentive payments to the named Plaintiffs have
been deducted. Although the Plaintiffs have not provided an
estimate of how much those fees would be, based on estimated cost
figures provided by them, it is estimated that a fee award of 30%
would equal roughly $4 million. The attorney's fees are to be paid
from the settlement fund.
The Plaintiffs represent that the settlement would provide an
incentive award of $5,000 to each named Plaintiff. They estimate
that, after deduction of costs, attorneys' fees, and the incentive
awards, the remaining settlement funds will be $9 million. If none
of the 60 class members opt out, each member would receive an
average of $150,000 from the settlement fund, which far exceeds the
value of the incentive payments.
The settlement agreement provides that the Beverly Group will serve
as the claims administrator and will provide notice to the class.
The administrator will also receive and catalogue any opt-outs. In
addition to mailing the notice to known class members within 10
days of the Preliminary Approval Order, the notice will be posted
on the Plaintiffs' counsel's website and published in the
Sacramento Bee.
Rule 23(a) restricts class actions to cases where: (1) the class is
so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there
are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or
defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or
defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Judge Shubb holds that (i) the Plaintiffs estimate that the
proposed class will contain 60 members, based on the number of
investors and lenders who are believed to have been victims of the
Ponzi scheme; (ii) the named Plaintiffs share the characteristics
of this proposed class and the issues to presented by the suit;
(iii) although the amount lost by each class member varies, the
basis for their injuries and the parties responsible for those
injuries are alleged to be identical for the named Plaintiffs and
all the putative class members; (iv) the proposed incentive awards
do not render the named Plaintiffs inadequate representatives of
the class; and (v) the absence of conflicts of interest and the
vigor of the counsel's representation satisfy Rule 23(a)'s adequacy
assessment for the purpose of preliminary approval.
An action that meets all the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) may be
certified as a class action only if it also satisfies the
requirements of one of the three subdivisions of Rule 23(b). The
Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(3), which provides
that a class action may be maintained only if (1) "the court finds
that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over questions affecting only individual members" and (2) "that a
class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating the controversy."
Judge Shubb finds that common questions of law and fact predominate
over the class members' claims and the class action device appears
to be the superior method for adjudicating this controversy.
If a court certifies a class under Rule 23(b)(3), it "must direct
to class members the best notice that is practicable under the
circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can
be identified through reasonable effort." Under the circumstances
of the case, Judge Shubb is satisfied that this system is
reasonably calculated to provide notice to the class members and is
the best form of notice available under the circumstances as
required under Rule 23(c)(2).
After determining that the proposed class satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), Judge Shubb must determine
whether the terms of the parties' settlement appear fair, adequate,
and reasonable. First, he finds no reason to doubt the parties'
representations that the settlement was the result of vigorous,
arms-length bargaining. Second, in light of the uncertainties
associated with pursuing litigation, he will grant preliminary
approval to the settlement because it is "within the range of
possible approval. Lastly, he does not evaluate the fee award at
length in considering whether the settlement is adequate.
For the foregoing reasons, Judge Shubb grants the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary certification of a conditional settlement
class and grants preliminary approval of the class action
settlement.
The class is provisionally certified for the purpose of settlement
as:
All Net Losers, including assignees, but excluding Net Losers
who have already released the Bank from IMG-related claims, and
also excluding any governmental entities, any judge, justice or
judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of his
or her immediate family, the Bank, along with its corporate
parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates, successors, and attorneys
of any excluded Person or entity referenced above, and any Person
acting on behalf of any excluded Person or entity referenced
above.
'Net Loser' is defined as any Settlement Class Member who
suffered a Net Loss from lending to or investing money in IMG's
medical supply-related business(es), and 'Net Loss' is defined as:
'The total amount transferred by a Settlement Class Member to IMG
minus the total amount received back from IMG, including, but not
limited to any return on investment, return of principal, fees, and
other payments by IMG to the Settlement Class Member. For purposes
of this settlement, for each Participating Class Member, the Net
Loss will be the amount of the allowed claim as reflected in the
Claims Approval Order, provided that such allowed claim only
includes monies provided to IMG for the purpose of lending to or
investing money in IMG's medical supply-related business(es).';
For purposes of carrying out the terms of the settlement only,
Ronald Evans, Joan Evans, and Dennis Treadaway are appointed as the
representatives of the settlement class; Attorneys Robert L. Brace
and Michael P. Denver are appointed as the class counsel; and the
Beverly Group is appointed as the settlement administrator.
The form and content of the proposed Notice of Class Action
Settlement is approved, except to the extent that it must be
updated to reflect dates and deadlines specified in this
preliminary approval Order. The Notice will also inform recipients
that it is possible that the Final Fairness Hearing on Nov. 7, 2022
will be held remotely, so, in the weeks prior to the Hearing,
Notice recipients should check the Plaintiffs' Counsel's website,
www.Rusty.Lawyer, for updates and instructions on how to attend
remotely, if applicable.
No later than 10 calendar days from the date of the Order, the
Beverly Group will mail the Notice of Class Action Settlement to
all known members of the class, the Notice will be posted on the
counsel's website at www.Rusty.Lawyer, and a short form notice will
be published one time in the Sacramento Bee.
No later than 30 days from the date the Notice is mailed, any
member of the settlement class who intends to object to, comment
upon, or opt out of the settlement will mail written notice of that
intent to the Beverly Group pursuant to the instructions in the
Notice of Class Action Settlement.
A final fairness hearing is set for Nov. 7, 2022, at 1:30 p.m. in
Courtroom 5 of the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse, 501 I
Street, Sacramento, California.
No later than 35 days before the final fairness hearing, the class
counsel will file with the Court a petition for an award of
attorney's fees and costs. Any objections or responses to the
petition should be filed no later than 21 days before the final
fairness hearing. The class counsel may file a reply to any
objections no later than 11 days before the final fairness
hearing.
No later than 35 days before the final fairness hearing, the class
counsel will file and serve upon the Court and the Defendant's
counsel all papers in support of final approval of the settlement
and the incentive award requested for the class representatives.
Any objections or responses to the motion should be filed no later
than 21 days before the final fairness hearing. The class counsel
may file a reply to any objections no later than 11 days before the
final fairness hearing.
No later than 35 days before the final fairness hearing, the
Beverly Group will prepare, and the class counsel will file and
serve upon the Court and the Defendant's counsel, a declaration
setting forth the services rendered, proof of mailing, a list of
all class members who have opted out of the settlement, or the
amount of the class member's adjudicated claim.
Any person who has standing to object to the terms of the proposed
settlement may themselves appear at the final fairness hearing or
appear through counsel and be heard to the extent allowed by the
Court. To be heard in opposition at the final fairness hearing, a
person must, no later than 60 days from the date the Order is
signed, (a) serve written notice of his or her intention to appear
upon the class counsel and the counsel for the Defendant; and (b)
file said appearance, objections, papers, and briefs with the
Court, together with proof of service of all such documents upon
the counsel for the parties.
Responses to any such objections will be served by hand or through
the mails on the objectors, or on the objector's counsel if there
is any, and filed with the court no later than 14 calendar days
before the final fairness hearing. Objectors may file optional
replies no later than seven calendar days before the final fairness
hearing in the same manner described.
Pending final determination of whether the settlement should be
ultimately approved, Judge Shubb preliminary enjoins all class
members (unless and until the class member has submitted a timely
and valid request for exclusion) from filing or prosecuting any
claims, suits, or administrative proceedings regarding claims to be
released by the settlement.
A full-text copy of the Court's July 29, 2022 Memorandum & Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/56zwjaey from Leagle.com.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co Defends Against 4,131 Claimants at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Company, as of June 30, 2022, is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that
purport to represent approximately 4,131 individual claimants,
compared to approximately 3,876 individual claimants with actions
pending December 31, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims
resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of
some of the Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages
from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury
from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or
other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure
to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company,
which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by
other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
"The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in
2003. The Company expects that filing of claims by unimpaired
claimants in the future will continue to be at much lower levels
than in the past. Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more
serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and
black lung disease, will represent a greater percentage of total
claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the
Company has prevailed in fifteen of the sixteen cases tried to a
jury (including the lawsuits in 2018 described below). In 2018, 3M
received a jury verdict in its favor in two lawsuits – one in
California state court in February and the other in Massachusetts
state court in December – both involving allegations that 3M
respirators were defective and failed to protect the plaintiffs
against asbestos fibers. In April 2018, a jury in state court in
Kentucky found 3M's 8710 respirators failed to protect two coal
miners from coal mine dust and awarded compensatory damages of
approximately $2 million and punitive damages totaling $63 million.
In August 2018, the trial court entered judgment and the Company
appealed. During March and April 2019, the Company agreed in
principle to settle a substantial majority of the then-pending coal
mine dust lawsuits in Kentucky and West Virginia for $340 million,
including the jury verdict in April 2018 in the Kentucky case
mentioned above. That settlement was completed in 2019, and the
appeal has been dismissed. In October 2020, 3M defended a
respirator case before a jury in King County, Washington, involving
a former shipyard worker who alleged 3M's 8710 respirator was
defective and that 3M acted negligently in failing to protect him
against asbestos fibers. The jury delivered a complete defense
verdict in favor of 3M, concluding that the 8710 respirator was not
defective in design or warnings and any conduct by 3M was not a
cause of plaintiff's mesothelioma. The plaintiff appealed the
verdict. In May 2022, the First Division intermediate appellate
court in Washington affirmed in part and reversed in part 3M’s
trial victory, concluding that the trial court misapplied
Washington law in instructing the jury about factual causation. 3M
will seek review by the Washington Supreme Court.
"The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless, the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including
mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are
costlier to resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it
therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future
claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by medically unimpaired claimants. Since the second half
of 2020, the Company has experienced an increase in the number of
cases filed that allege injuries from exposures to coal mine dust;
that increase represents the substantial majority of the growth in
case numbers referred to above."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3A8jcE1
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Global Has $310MM Reserves at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Global Holdings Inc. has reported total reserves for
asbestos claims of $310 million at June 30, 2022 compared to $320
million at September 30, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Ashland is subject to liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims result from indemnification obligations undertaken in 1990
in connection with the sale of Riley Stoker Corporation (Riley) and
the acquisition of Hercules in November 2008. Although Riley, a
former subsidiary, was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of
asbestos, its industrial boilers contained some asbestos-containing
components provided by other companies. Hercules, an indirect
wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland, has liabilities from claims
alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos. Such
claims typically arise from alleged exposure to asbestos fibers
from resin encapsulated pipe and tank products sold by one of
Hercules’ former subsidiaries to a limited industrial market.
"To assist in developing and annually updating independent reserve
estimates for future asbestos claims and related costs given
various assumptions for Ashland and Hercules asbestos claims,
Ashland retained third party actuarial experts Gnarus. The
methodology used by Gnarus to project future asbestos costs is
based largely on recent experience, including claim-filing and
settlement rates, disease mix, enacted legislation, open claims and
litigation defense. The claim experience of Ashland and Hercules
are separately compared to the results of previously conducted
third party epidemiological studies estimating the number of people
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
expected to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information,
Gnarus estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities and
receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income (Loss)."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3Pff6OE
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Still Faces Product Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as a
defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in
various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to
exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold
predominantly by the its discontinued Motion Control business
between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and
defense costs associated with these lawsuits.
The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs
associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of June 30,
2022, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not
material to the Company's financial position, results of
operations, or operating cash flows.
The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with
asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred.
The Company currently maintains insurance coverage with respect to
asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company
records the insurance coverage as a long-term receivable in an
amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending
and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company’s
insurance policies contain various coverage exclusions, limits of
coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to
insurance coverage disputes, the Company may recognize expenses for
indemnity and defense costs in particular periods if and when it
becomes probable that such costs will not be covered by insurance.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AaBVyK
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Defends Personal Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier Global Corporation has been named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to
asbestos allegedly integrated into certain Carrier products or
business premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
While the Company has never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporates it into any currently-manufactured products, certain
products that the Company no longer manufactures contained
components incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or have
been covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos-related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate in any
period.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3zMeivc
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Has $10.6MM Asbestos Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation, like many industrial manufacturers,
is involved in asbestos-related litigation, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company has estimated its share of liability to defend and
resolve probable asbestos-related personal injury claims. This
estimate is highly uncertain due to the limitations of the
available data and the difficulty of forecasting with any certainty
the numerous variables that can affect the range of the liability.
The Company will continue to study the variables in light of
additional information in order to identify trends that may become
evident and to assess their impact on the range of liability that
is probable and estimable.
Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its net
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $5,800,000 and $10,600,000, net of insurance
recoveries, using actuarial parameters of continued claims for a
period of 37 years from June 30, 2022. The Company has estimated
its asbestos-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, net of insurance recoveries, in accordance with U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles approximates $7,652,000.
The Company has reflected the liability gross of insurance
recoveries of $8,944,000 as a liability in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2022. The recorded
liability does not consider the impact of any potential favorable
federal legislation. This liability will fluctuate based on the
uncertainty in the number of future claims that will be filed and
the cost to resolve those claims, which may be influenced by a
number of factors, including the outcome of the ongoing broad-based
settlement negotiations, defensive strategies, and the cost to
resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement program. Of this
amount, management expects to incur asbestos liability payments of
approximately $2,400,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment
of the liability is likely to extend over many years, management
believes that the potential additional costs for claims will not
have a material effect on the financial condition of the Company or
its liquidity, although the effect of any future liabilities
recorded could be material to earnings in a future period.
A share of the Company's previously incurred asbestos-related
expenses and future asbestos-related expenses are covered by
pre-existing insurance policies. The Company had been engaged in a
legal action against the insurance carriers for those policies to
recover past expenses and future costs incurred. The Company came
to an agreement with the insurance carriers to settle its case
against them for recovery of a portion of past costs and future
costs for asbestos-related legal defense costs. The agreement was
finalized during the quarter ended September 30, 2020. The terms of
the settlement require the carriers to pay gross defense costs
prior to retro-premiums of 65% for future asbestos-related defense
costs subject to an annual cap of $1,650,000 for claims covered by
the settlement.
Further, the insurance carriers are expected to cover 100% of
indemnity costs related to all covered cases. Estimates of the
future cost sharing have been included in the loss reserve
calculation as of June 30, 2022 and March 31, 2022. The Company has
recorded a receivable for the estimated future cost sharing in
Other assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet at June
30, 2022 in the amount of $8,944,000, which offsets its asbestos
reserves.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3A9YxzA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Corp. Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flowserve Corporation is a defendant in a substantial number of
lawsuits that seek to recover damages for personal injury allegedly
caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products manufactured
and/or distributed by its heritage companies in the past, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Typically, these lawsuits have been brought
against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. While the
overall number of asbestos-related claims in which we or our
predecessors have been named has generally declined in recent
years, there can be no assurance that this trend will continue, or
that the average cost per claim to us will not further increase.
Asbestos-containing materials incorporated into any such products
were encapsulated and used as internal components of process
equipment, and we do not believe that significant emission of
asbestos fibers occurred during the use of this equipment.
"We believe that our reserve for asbestos claims and the receivable
for recoveries from insurance carriers that we have recorded for
these claims reflects reasonable and probable estimates of these
amounts. Our estimate of our ultimate exposure for asbestos claims,
however, is subject to significant uncertainties, including the
timing and number and types of new claims, unfavorable court
rulings, judgments or settlement terms and ultimate costs to
settle. Additionally, the continued viability of carriers may also
impact the amount of probable insurance recoveries. We believe that
these uncertainties could have a material adverse impact on our
business, financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows, though we currently believe the likelihood is remote.
"Additionally, we have claims pending against certain insurers
that, if resolved more favorably than reflected in the recorded
receivables, would result in discrete gains in the applicable
quarter."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3AaIuBl
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Has $485MM Net A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., as of June 30, 2022,
has reported $485 million of net asbestos and environmental
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company continues to receive A&E claims. Asbestos claims relate
primarily to bodily injuries asserted by people who came in contact
with asbestos or products containing asbestos. Environmental claims
relate primarily to pollution and related clean-up costs.
The vast majority of the Company's exposure to A&E relates to
Run-off A&E, reported within the P&C Other Operations segment. In
addition, since 1986, the Company has written asbestos and
environmental exposures under general liability policies and
pollution liability under homeowners policies, which are reported
in the Commercial Lines and Personal Lines segments.
Prior to 1986, the Company wrote several different categories of
insurance contracts that may cover A&E claims. First, the Company
wrote primary policies providing the first layer of coverage in an
insured's liability program. Second, the Company wrote excess and
umbrella policies providing higher layers of coverage for losses
that exhaust the limits of underlying coverage. Third, the Company
acted as a reinsurer assuming a portion of those risks assumed by
other insurers writing primary, excess, umbrella and reinsurance
coverages.
Significant uncertainty limits the ability of insurers and
reinsurers to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid
gross losses and expenses related to environmental and asbestos
claims. The degree of variability of gross reserve estimates for
these exposures is significantly greater than for other more
traditional exposures.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3p8bpj9
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l Defends Personal Injury Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal
injury claims related to North American Refractories Company
(NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials
business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
NARCO manufactured high-grade, heat-resistant, refractory products
for various industries. Honeywell's predecessor, Allied
Corporation, owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986. Allied Corporation sold
the NARCO business in 1986 and entered into a cross-indemnity
agreement which included an obligation to indemnify the purchaser
for asbestos claims, arising primarily from alleged occupational
exposure to asbestos-containing refractory brick and mortar for
high-temperature applications. NARCO ceased manufacturing these
products in 1980 and filed for bankruptcy in January 2002, at which
point in time all then current and future NARCO asbestos claims
were stayed against both NARCO and Honeywell pending the
reorganization of NARCO. The Company established its initial
liability for NARCO asbestos claims in 2002.
Bendix manufactured automotive brake linings that contained
chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist
largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes
from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who
performed brake replacements.
The NARCO asbestos-related liability reflects an estimate for the
resolution of Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established
Unliquidated Claims filed with the Trust, as well as for unasserted
Annual Contribution Claims and Pre-Established Unliquidated Claims.
The NARCO asbestos-related liability excludes the annual operating
expenses of the Trust which are expensed as they are incurred.
The Company reflects the inclusion of all years of epidemiological
disease projection through 2059 when estimating the liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims. Such liability for
unasserted Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic and
anticipated claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. The Company valued Bendix asserted and
unasserted claims using average resolution values for the previous
five years. The Company updates the resolution values used to
estimate the cost of Bendix asserted and unasserted claims during
the fourth quarter each year.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QvOquN
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corporation Faces Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation and seven of its subsidiaries are presently named
as defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various
asbestos-related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of
exposure to products manufactured with components that contained
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These components were acquired from third
party suppliers and were not manufactured by the Company or any of
the defendant subsidiaries. To date, the majority of the Company's
settlements and legal costs, except for costs of coordination,
administration, insurance investigation and a portion of defense
costs, have been covered in full by insurance, subject to
applicable deductibles. However, the Company cannot predict whether
and to what extent insurance will be available to continue to cover
these settlements and legal costs, or how insurers may respond to
claims that are tendered to them. Asbestos-related claims have been
filed in jurisdictions throughout the United States and the United
Kingdom. Most of the claims resolved to date have been dismissed
without payment. The balance of the claims have been settled for
various immaterial amounts. Only one case has been tried, resulting
in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No provision has been
made in the financial statements of the Company, other than for
insurance deductibles in the ordinary course, and the Company does
not currently believe the asbestos-related claims will have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, results of operations or cash flows."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3p7eHDp
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Defends 1,501 Claims at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as of June 30, 2022, was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness involving
claims by approximately 1,501 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease
of 23 claims from those previously reported, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The Company states, "The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums. Since January
1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other similar cases
that have been resolved as follows: 56,849 of those claims were
dismissed, 23 were tried to defense verdicts, 7 were tried to
plaintiff verdicts (which were reversed or resolved after appeal),
1 was resolved by agreement for an immaterial amount and 1,012 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3vQbhsz
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mine Safety Defends 4,660 Claims as of June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Incorporated's affiliate, Mine Safety Appliances
Company, LLC ("MSA LLC"), was named as a defendant in 1,690
lawsuits comprised of 4,660 claims as of June 30, 2022, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "These lawsuits mainly involve respiratory
protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by MSA LLC or
its predecessors. The product models alleged were manufactured many
years ago by MSA LLC and are no longer sold.
"Management has established a reserve for MSA LLC's potential
exposure to cumulative trauma product liability claims. MSA LLC's
total cumulative trauma product liability reserve was $411.8
million, including $5.0 million for claims settled but not yet paid
and related defense costs, as of June 30, 2022 and $409.8 million,
including $2.5 million for claims settled but not yet paid and
related defense costs, December 31, 2021. The reserve includes
estimated amounts related to asserted and IBNR asbestos, silica,
and coal dust claims expected to be resolved through the year 2074.
The reserve has not been discounted to present value and does not
include future amounts which will be spent to defend the claims.
Defense costs are recognized in the unaudited Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Income as incurred.
At June 30, 2022, $49.3 million of the total reserve for cumulative
trauma product liability claims is recorded in the Insurance and
product liability line within other current liabilities in the
unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets and the remainder,
$362.5 million, is recorded in the Product liability and other
noncurrent liabilities line. At December 31, 2021, $46.7 million of
the total reserve for cumulative trauma product liability claims is
recorded in the Insurance and product liability line within other
current liabilities in the unaudited Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets and the remainder, $363.1 million, is recorded in the
Product liability and other noncurrent liabilities line.
"During the quarter ended June 30, 2022, MSA LLC finalized a
process that could result in settlements to resolve and dismiss
several hundred claims for up to $26.3 million with payments
potentially spread across the third quarter of 2022 through the
first quarter of 2023. Amounts to resolve these claims have already
been accrued as part of the product liability reserve.
"Total cumulative trauma liability losses were $2.9 million and
$5.7 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and
primarily related to the defense of cumulative trauma product
liability claims. Total cumulative trauma liability losses were
$24.5 million and $27.5 million for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2021 and related to an update to our asserted cumulative
trauma product liability reserve as well as the defense of
cumulative trauma product liability claims. Uninsured cumulative
trauma product liability losses, which were included in Product
liability expense on the unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Statements of Income, were $2.9 million and $5.7 million for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2022 and $11.8 million and
$14.5 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2021,
respectively, and represent the total cumulative trauma liability
losses net of any estimated insurance receivables."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3bMMw9S
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Otis Worldwide Has $22MM Estimated Liabilities
---------------------------------------------------------------
Otis Worldwide Corporation has reported an estimated range of total
liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future
asbestos claims of approximately $22 million to $45 million as of
June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "As previously disclosed, we have been named as
defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos. While we have never manufactured any
asbestos-containing component parts, and no longer incorporate
asbestos in any current products, certain of our historical
products have contained components manufactured by third parties
incorporating asbestos. A substantial majority of these
asbestos-related claims have been dismissed without payment or were
covered in full or in part by insurance or other forms of
indemnity. Additional cases were litigated and settled without any
insurance reimbursement. The amounts involved in asbestos related
claims were not material individually or in the aggregate as of and
for the periods ended June 30, 2022 and December 31, 2021."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3dlPfHw
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Defends PI Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rockwell Automation, Inc. (including its subsidiaries) have been
named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components
of its products many years ago, including products from divested
businesses for which they have agreed to defend and indemnify
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Currently there are a few thousand claimants
in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of
other companies. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show
that they worked with our products or products of divested
businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we
have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity
of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing
components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the
part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously.
Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of
these claims with no payment to claimants.
"Additionally, we have maintained insurance coverage that includes
indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured
retentions, for many of these claims. We believe these arrangements
will provide substantial coverage for future defense and indemnity
costs for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of
asbestos liability. The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation
make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of
asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility
of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim
litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these
uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos
claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material
effect on our business, financial condition, or results of
operations."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3QfcnGx
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp Has 425 Pending Cases as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation, as of June 30, 2022, was a party to 425 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 4,796 claimants primarily alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise)
manufactured or distributed by its former Lamons division and
certain other related subsidiaries for use primarily in the
petrochemical, refining and exploration industries, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Company may be subjected to significant additional
asbestos-related claims in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate. The cost of settling cases
in which product identification can be made may increase, and the
Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The cost of claims
varies as claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions
without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the
requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be
amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do
not specify the amount sought. Of the 4,796 claims pending at June
30, 2022, 45 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than
those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2022,
of the 45 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were zero
claims seeking more than $5 million for punitive damages.
Relatively few claims have reached the discovery stage and even
fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 30 years ago, have been approximately $10.6
million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in
nature. Based on the settlements made to date and the number of
claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification,
the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does
not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at
https://bit.ly/3PgvXRo
*********
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 2022. 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 ***