/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 17, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 78 Headlines ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Challenges Proposed Merger With Dialog AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending AMERICAN NATIONAL: Williams Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5-Mil. Settlement Entered in Contreras Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Suit Over Digoxin Sales Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Suit AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Stayed AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Opana ER(R) Suit Set for March 2021 AMNEAL PHARMA: Williams Class Action Dismissed ATLAS LAW: Settlement Class in Curtis Suit Certified AVANGRID INC: Appeal in PNE Energy Supply Suit Ongoing AVANGRID INC: Bid for En Banc Review in Breiding Suit Denied AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending AVITECTURE INC: Improperly Pays Technicians' Wages, Rimaihi Says BANCO BRADESCO: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement Accord Executed in Overdraft Fees Suit BRONX BAR: Approval of Agreement and Release Bid in Cortes Denied CENTERSTATE BANK: Johnson Challenges Merger With South State CHEVRON STATIONS: Kabir FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Levey Sues Over Failure to Refund Airfare CONOCOPHILLIPS: Stanley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA DCM SERVICES: Zurakov Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices EASTSIDE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EHEALTH INC: Patel Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Share Price EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Demurrers Set for May 1 EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Donahue Class Suit EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending FGL HOLDINGS: Accord in Brokerage Insurance Suit Has Initial OK FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due April 20 FIFTH THIRD: Settlement of Damages Class Wins Final Approval GANNETT CO: Scarantino & Steiner Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Certifies No Consent Class GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Class GREEN DOT: Continues to Defend Koffsmon Class Action GREEN DOT: Faces Hellman Securities Class Action GREENSKY INC: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suits in NY GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Seek to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Muse Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class HUSA LH: Hernandez Suit Over FLSA Violation Moved to S.D. Florida IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021 INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021 INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Violation of TCPA LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC LABORATORY CORP: Florida Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in "Davis" LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom, Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit Over Commissions LANXESS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wright Alleges LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Madhat Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LOCUMS INC: Faces Katz TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts LOS ANGELES USD: Essah Class Suit Removed to C.D. California LTF CLUB: Marsh Labor Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts LYFT INC: Rogers Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California MACY'S INC: Hartigan Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Oklahoma Pending MAMMOTH ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Puerto Rico MARIN J CORP: Agricultural Workers Class Certified MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Johnson Class Action in Georgia MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied NURSECON AT SEA: Mitchell Wants Cancelled Convention Fees Back OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Dismissal Order ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit in Nevada ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing PETRO MECHANICAL: Roque Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action in Utah PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC: Ohio App. Affirms CSPA Suit Dismissal ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Xia Class Suit Over Total Outage of OS RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing S S D ENTERPRISES: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McMinn Says SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Zayas Suit SEVERO OZUNA: Settlement in Camilo Suit Wins Final Approval SHASTA BEVERAGES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Garcia SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Deluna Suit Over Jan. 2020 Data Breach TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending THOMAS MAINTENANCE: Thevenin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TILRAY INC: Faces Braun Class Action in Delaware TLG FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Ruffolo Sues Over Unlawful Time Shaving TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Employment Suit Removed to S.D. New York TWILIO INC: Compliance Hearing in Flowers Case Set for May 19 TWILIO INC: Settlement in Bauman Litigation Pending UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Utley Suit Alleging Breach of Contract UNIVERSAL GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Electricians US ECOLOGY: Sullivan to Proceed Solely with PAGA Claims VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed WALMART INC: Faces Sousa Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages WYNNE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims ZOGENIX INC: Final Judgment of Dismissal Filed in Lake Class Suit ZOOM VIDEO: Johnston Sues Over Sharing of Users' Personal Info Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $208MM Liability Reserve ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 124 Pending Talc Suits at December 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay Filed in D/C Bankruptcy Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Records $255MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.0MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 32 PI Suits at January 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,465 Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Suits and Claims for $30,000 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at December 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 61,134 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 108 Pending Cases at December 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 114 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Dec. 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at January 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 28 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Faces 108 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31 ********* ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES: Stein Challenges Proposed Merger With Dialog ----------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ADESTO TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, NELSON CHAN, NARBEH DERHACOBIAN, HERVE FAGES, FRANCIS LEE, KEVIN PALATNIK, and SUSAN UTHAYAKUMAR, Case No. 1:20-cv-02900 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020), is brought on behalf of the other public holders of the common stock of Adesto against its and the members of its board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with the proposed merger between Adesto and Dialog Semiconductor plc. On February 20, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive $12.55 in cash for each share of Adesto stock they own. On March 16, 2020, in order to convince Adesto shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form PREM14A Preliminary Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, according to the complaint. The materially incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy violates both Regulation G and SEC Rule 14a-9, each of which constitutes a violation of the Exchange Act. On March 27, 2020, the Board authorized the filing of a Form DEFM14A Definitive Proxy that did not correct the materially misleading nature of the Preliminary Proxy. The Board has scheduled a special meeting of the Company's shareholders on May 5, 2020, to vote on the Proposed Transaction. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the Proxy, the Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby, violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the Proxy materially incomplete and misleading, the Plaintiff contends. In particular, the Plaintiff asserts, the Proxy contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning: (i) the financial projections for the Company that were prepared by the Company and relied on by Defendants in recommending that Adesto shareholders vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction; and (ii) the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Adesto's financial advisor, Cowen and Company, LLC, in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff contends that it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the Proxy is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the material information is disclosed to Adesto shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is a holder of Adesto common stock. Adesto provides application specific semiconductors and embedded systems that provide key building blocks of Internet of Things edge devices operating on networks worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com AKCEA THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Cambridge Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0905, is pending. On November 11, 2019, a purported Company stockholder filed the Delaware Action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned City of Cambridge Retirement System v. Crooke, et al., C.A. No. 2019-0905. The plaintiff in the Delaware Action asserts claims against (i) current and former members of the company's board of directors; and (ii) Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. The plaintiff asserts derivative claims on behalf of Akcea, which is a nominal defendant in the Delaware Action, as well as putatively direct claims on behalf of a purported class of our stockholders. The plaintiff in the Delaware action asserts that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the licensing transaction that we and Ionis entered into regarding inotersen and AKCEA-TTR-LRx. The plaintiff also asserts an unjust enrichment claim against Ionis. Akcea said, "We and the Defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. We believe that the claims asserted in the Delaware Action are without merit. This litigation could result in substantial costs and a diversion of management's resources and attention, which could harm our business and the value of our common stock." Akcea Therapeutics, Inc. is a commercial stage biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing transformative medicines to treat patients with serious and rare diseases. Its large and advancing pipeline of medicines in late-stage development and medicines on the market allows the company to capitalize on its strengths in supporting patients, healthcare professionals and caregivers in treating rare and serious diseases. The company is based in Boston, Massachusetts. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Williams Labor Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as CAMERON WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS, a corporation; and DOES 1 to 50 inclusive, Case No. RIC- 2000530 (Filed Feb. 4, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:20-cv-00577 to the proceeding. The complaint purports to state a cause of action against Defendant for violation of California Labor Code. The American Red Cross, also known as The American National Red Cross, is a humanitarian organization that provides emergency assistance, disaster relief, and disaster preparedness education in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cameron Williams, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 48/8-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 The Defendant is represented by: Steven B. Katz, Esq. Sayaka Karitani, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: ksulzer@constangy.com skaritani@constangy.com AMERICOLD REALTY: $2.5-Mil. Settlement Entered in Contreras Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Americold Realty Trustsaid in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has entered into a preliminary settlement of the class action suit initiated by Jose Contreras for $2.5 million. On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff Jose Contreras (a former employee) filed a putative class action against the Company in the San Bernardino County Superior Court asserting that the Company: (1) failed to pay minimum wages; (2) failed to pay overtime wages; (3) failed to pay all vacation wages; (4) failed to provide meal periods; (5) failed to provide accurate wage statements; (6) failed to pay wages timely to terminated employees; and (7) violated California unfair business practices. On April 10, 2019, the Company filed an Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the complaint and successfully removed the case to federal court in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 2, 2019, plaintiff filed a separate lawsuit for civil penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") in the San Bernardino Superior Court against the Company, Case No. CIV-DS-1913525 based on similar factual allegations that are asserted in the complaint. The Company successfully obtained a dismissal of the San Bernardino Superior Court Action. On June 18, 2019, the plaintiff amended his complaint in the pending federal court action to add a rest period violation claim and PAGA penalty claims based on similar allegations that are asserted in the complaint. Plaintiff's counsel later dismissed plaintiff's vacation wages claim from his first amended complaint. The Company denies the plaintiff's claims and denies that plaintiff and the putative class members have been damaged in any respect or in any amount as a result of any act or omission by the Company. The Company also denies that this case is appropriate for class treatment and further asserts, among other grounds, that this case is unmanageable as a PAGA representative action. The Company has entered into a preliminary settlement of the case for $2.5 million. The settlement of the case is subject to court approval. Americold Realty Trust is a leading provider of cold storage services headquartered in Atlanta, and is organized as a real estate investment trust. The firm is focused on the ownership, operation, development and acquisition of temperature-controlled real estate. Americold also provides additional services including warehouse handling and value-add logistics services to manage the entire temperature-controlled supply chain. AMNEAL PHARMA: Appeal in Suit Over Digoxin Sales Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal from a decision in the class action suit related to generic drug digoxin is ongoing. On April 17, 2017, lead plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-06557-HSG). Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice and with leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs' opposition thereto was filed on January 17, 2019; and Impax's reply in support of its motion to dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019. On August 12, 2019, the Court entered an order granting Impax's motion, dismissing plaintiff’s second amended complaint with prejudice. On September 5, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from both dismissal orders with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. By order of the Ninth Circuit dated November 26, 2019, plaintiff's opening brief presently is due to be filed on February 14, 2020, with Impax's answering brief due on March 16, 2020. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Cambridge Retirement System Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending against a class action suit entitled, Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-001701-19. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against the Company and fourteen current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-001701-19). Plaintiff principally alleges that the amended registration statement and prospectus issued on May 7, 2018 in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading, insofar as it purportedly failed to disclose that Amneal was an active participant in an alleged antitrust conspiracy with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix generic drug prices, and that this secret collusion improperly bolstered Amneal's financial results reflected in the registration statement. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, certification of a class and unspecified compensatory and/or recessionary damages. Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition." Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Faces Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Suit ------------------------------------------------ Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in the class action suit entitled, In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation. On January 27, 2020, the Company and Amneal were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of consumers who purchased Zantac(R) (ranitidine) and have not been diagnosed with, but "live in constant fear of developing," cancer, alleging that the defendants, comprising various entities alleged to have manufactured or sold brand-name Zantac(R) or generic ranitidine, failed to disclose and/or concealed the product’s "dangerous propensities" in respect of the alleged presence in the product of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or NDMA) (White, et al., v. GlaxoSmithKline plc, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07773). The complaint purports to state claims for violations of state consumer protection acts, breaches of implied warranties, negligence/gross negligence, and fraudulent concealment (and seeks the certification of corresponding nationwide classes and subclasses). In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including the implementation and funding of a medical monitoring program. The complaint is one of hundreds of similar putative class actions and personal injury/product liability lawsuits filed in federal courts nationwide (though this is the first in which the Company/Amneal have been named as defendants). In November 2019, the JPML established In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924) for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and, on February 6, 2020, ordered the MDL centralized in the Southern District of Florida. On February 24, 2020 this lawsuit was transferred to and consolidated with MDL No. 2924. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Suit Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Beginning in March 2016, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax. The end-payor plaintiffs comprised Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprised KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprised The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants' motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs' complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs' complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products, including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and territories against several defendants; the relief sought and allegations concerning the Company (including the products allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance companies and managed health care providers (America's 1st Choice of South Carolina, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 190702094), naming as defendants in the putative action the same generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and individuals named in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. However, to date, no complaint has been filed or served in this action. On December 12, 2019, the court entered an Order placing the case in deferred status pending further developments in MDL No. 2724. On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02696), following on and supplementing its original action, asserting antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 25, 2019, the lawsuit was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit, and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv 04862), and likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On November 14, 2019, the Company was named in a complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, on behalf of 14 counties in the state of New York, who allege to be both direct and end-payor purchasers of generic pharmaceutical drugs (County of Nassau, et al., v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al., No. 616029/2019). The complaint asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff Counties seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 17, 2019, defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 2:19-cv-07071) and, on January 3, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 11, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in E.D. Pa. by Health Care Service Corp., a customer-owned health insurer opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Health Care Service Corp. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-05819-CMR). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On December 16, 2019, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Impax and against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers on behalf of assignees of claims from third-party health benefit plans, opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-01972-SRU), and alleging a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to Impax, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On January 10, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On December 19, 2019, the end-payor plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, metronidazole, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, cyproheptadine HCL tablets, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 20, 2019, the indirect-reseller plaintiffs filed a new complaint naming the Company, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. The new complaint is brought on behalf of both independent pharmacies and hospitals, and asserts antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers (as well as distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, including AmerisourceBergen Corp., Cardinal Health Inc., and McKesson Corporation) arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 27, 2019, the Company and Impax were named in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Molina Healthcare, Inc., a publicly traded healthcare management organization opting out of the end-payor plaintiff class (Molina Healthcare, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 3:19-cv-08438). Plaintiff alleges a conspiracy among generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate tablets, and ranitidine HCL tablets; and with respect to Impax, digoxin, lidocaine-prilocaine, and metronidazole) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred by the JPML, to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On February 7, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a new complaint, following on and supplementing their putative class action lawsuit pending in MDL No. 2724. Plaintiffs' new complaint, which names as defendants the Company, Amneal, Impax, and numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleges a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products (including, with respect to the Company/Amneal, bethanechol chloride tablets, ranitidine HCL tablets, naproxen sodium tablets, oxycodone/acetaminophen tablets, hydrocodone/acetaminophen tablets, phenytoin sodium capsules, and warfarin sodium tablets; and with respect to Impax, amphetamine salts tablets, dextroamphetamine sulfate ER capsules, methylphenidate tablets, and pilocarpine HCL tablets) in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs continue to seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. On December 26, 2019, the MDL court entered a case management order extending by stipulation certain pretrial discovery deadlines, including leaving open-ended the date by which, after consultation with MDL court's appointed Special Master, the parties are to agree upon bellwether claims or cases for, inter alia, class certification and/or trials. Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition." Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Rhodes Class Action Proceedings Stayed ----------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that all activity in the class action suit entitled, Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00885, had been stayed by order of the multi-district litigation court. In October 2019, the Company, Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and Impax were served with a putative class action complaint, which also names as defendants numerous manufacturers of opioid products (and certain corporate officers thereof), filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee by several individuals who allegedly purchased prescription opioid medication in cash and/or with an insurance co-payment (Rhodes, et al., v. Rhodes Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 3:19-cv-00885). Plaintiffs claim that they would not have purchased these prescription opioid products had defendants not allegedly misrepresented the products' "addiction propensities," and thereby suffered economic loss. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of all individuals who directly or indirectly purchased prescription opioid medication from January 2008 to the present in 31 different states, allege causes of action for violations of those states' antitrust laws and consumer protection statutes (and unjust enrichment), and seek, in addition to class certification, unspecified monetary damages (including actual, statutory, and punitive or treble damages) and equitable relief, including declaratory judgment and restitution. Responsive pleadings are not yet due to be filed. On February 5, 2020, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Settlement in Sergeants Suit Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court overseeing the case, Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et al., has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest's Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda(R) IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants' allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Trial in Opana ER(R) Suit Set for March 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the Opana ER(R) related class suit has entered a case schedule to which the parties jointly stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15, 2021. From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the "opt-out plaintiffs") were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs' actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served opening expert reports. Defendants' oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. On November 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed reply briefs in further support of their motions for class certification. On January 17, 2020, defendants filed a motion for leave to file joint surreply briefs in response thereto; plaintiffs filed responses on January 24, 2020. On February 5, 2020, the court granted defendants' motion for leave, and entered a case schedule to which the parties jointly stipulated, setting a trial date of March 15, 2021. Amneal said, "The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition." Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. AMNEAL PHARMA: Williams Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Emielou Williams has been dismissed. On August 3, 2017, plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax's Demurrer to Plaintiff's individual claims. However, it struck all of plaintiff’s class allegations. On March 13, 2018, plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck plaintiff's class allegations; plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal. Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019; Impax's brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019; plaintiff filed her reply brief on May 7, 2019; and Impax filed a surreply on May 22, 2019. The appeal has now been fully submitted on the briefs. On November 8, 2019, the Court of Appeal entered an order agreeing with Impax that the order from which plaintiff appealed was not appealable, and dismissing the appeal (and awarding Impax its costs on appeal). On December 31, 2019, Impax agreed to settle plaintiff's individual claims for an immaterial amount and with no admission of liability, in exchange for a waiver of costs and an executed request for dismissal with prejudice. The request for dismissal was filed with the Superior Court on January 27, 2020, and the court has now dismissed the matter. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic and specialty pharmaceutical products for various dosage forms and therapeutic areas. It operates through two segments, Generics and Specialty. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2002 and is based in Bridgewater, New Jersey. ATLAS LAW: Settlement Class in Curtis Suit Certified ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as LEONARD CURTIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ATLAS LAW, PLLC, Case No. 8:19-cv-01811-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Mary S. Soriven entered an order: 1. granting Curtis's motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of class Settlement; 2. preliminarily approving the Parties' settlement agreement, 3. approving, as to form and content, the Parties' Settlement Notice to Class and Claim Form 4. appoiniting First Class, Inc., 5410 W. Roosevelt Rd., Ste 222, Chicago, IL 60644-1490, as the Class Administrator and finds that such appointment has been agreed to by the Parties; 5. scheduling a fairness hearing be held before this Court on Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. at the Sam M. Gibbons United States Court House, 801 North Florida Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33602, Courtroom 7A; 6. preliminarily certifying Settlement Class consisting of: "all natural persons with a Florida address to whom Defendant sent a letter based on the Template in connection with the collection of a debt on or after July 24, 2018 through August 6, 2019"; 7. appointing the Mr. Curtis as the class representative for the Settlement Class, appointing following attorneys as Class Counsel: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA 5846 S. Flamingo Rd, Ste. 290 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 E-mail: aweisberg@afclaw.com - and - Elliot A. Rosenberger, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106- 618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (888) 332-7252 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: erosenberger@thompsonconsumerlaw.com and, 8. directing the Defendant to deliver to the Class Administrator a list of the names and last known addresses of the members of the Class no later than 14 from the date of this Order. The Court preliminarily finds that this case meets the requirements for class certification. Pursuant to the Agreement, the Defendant has agreed to pay a total class settlement fund of $3,500, to be distributed equally among those members of the class who submit timely claims for payment. Any class member who desires to receive a settlement payment must complete and sign the Claim Form sent with the Class Notice, the Court adds.[CC] AVANGRID INC: Appeal in PNE Energy Supply Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------ Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the appeal in the class action suit entitled, PNE Energy Supply LLC v. Eversource Energy and Avangrid, Inc., is ongoing. On August 10, 2018, PNE Energy Supply LLC, a competitive energy supplier located in New England that purchases electricity in the day-ahead and real time wholesale electric market, filed a civil antitrust action, on behalf of itself and those similarly situated, against the Company and Eversource alleging that their respective gas subsidiaries illegally manipulated the supply of pipeline capacity in the "secondary capacity market" in order to artificially inflate New England natural gas and electricity prices. These allegations were also based on the conclusions of the whitepaper issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). The plaintiff claims to represent entities who purchased electricity directly in the wholesale electricity market that it claims was targeted by the alleged anticompetitive conduct of Eversource and the Company. On September 28, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff inquiry and the dismissal of the related case, "Breiding et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid," by the same court in September. The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on October 26, 2018 and the Company filed a reply on November 15, 2018. The district court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on January 18, 2019. On April 26, 2019, the Company filed a brief in support of its motion to dismiss, and on June 7, 2019, the district court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss and dismissed all claims. On July 3, 2019, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, on October 18, 2019, filed a brief in support of appeal. Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action lawsuit." Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, as well as distribution, transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A. AVANGRID INC: Bid for En Banc Review in Breiding Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for an en banc review on the district court's order of dismissal in the class action suit entitled, Breiding et al. v. Eversource and Avangrid that was affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, has been denied. On November 16, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of customers in New England against the Company and Eversource alleging that certain of their respective subsidiaries that take gas transportation service over the Algonquin Gas Transmission (AGT), which for AVANGRID would be its indirect subsidiaries The Southern Connecticut Gas Company (SCG) and Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation (CNG), engaged in pipeline capacity scheduling practices on AGT that resulted in artificially increased electricity prices in New England. These allegations were based on the conclusions of a whitepaper issued by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an environmental advocacy organization, on October 10, 2017, purporting to analyze the relationship between the New England electricity market and the New England local gas distribution companies. The plaintiffs assert claims under federal antitrust law, state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and under the common law of unjust enrichment. They seek damages, disgorgement, restitution, injunctive relief and attorney fees and costs. On February 27, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) released the results of a FERC staff inquiry into the pipeline capacity scheduling practices on the AGT. The inquiry arose out of the allegations made by the EDF in its whitepaper. The FERC announced that, based on an extensive review of public and non-public data, it had determined that the EDF study was flawed and led to incorrect conclusions. FERC also stated that the staff inquiry revealed no evidence of anticompetitive withholding of natural gas pipeline capacity on the AGT and that it would take no further action on the matter. On April 27, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims based on federal preemption and lack of any evidence of antitrust behavior, citing, among other reasons, the results of the FERC staff inquiry conclusion. The plaintiffs filed opposition to the motion to dismiss on May 25, 2018. On September 11, 2018, the District Court granted the Company's Motion and dismissed all claims. On January 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a brief in support of appeal and on April 26, 2019, the Company and Eversource filed a joint brief in opposition. On May 17, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a reply to the opposition. On September 18, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking en banc review on October 16, 2019. On November 15, 2019, the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion. Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, as well as distribution, transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A. AVANGRID INC: Bid to Dismiss CMP's Customer Billing Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Avangrid, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Central Maine Power Company (CMP) and the Company's motion to dismiss the third amended complaint without prejudice or to stay proceedings pending plaintiffs' exhaustion of administrative remedies in the class action suit related to customer billing investigation, is pending. On August 16, 2018, an amended class action lawsuit was filed against Central Maine Power Company (CMP) and the Company in the Cumberland County Superior Court on behalf of all CMP customers alleging that CMP's new billing software and metering system improperly overcharged customers. The plaintiff asserts this claim under the common law of unjust enrichment, breach of contract and fraudulent and intentional misrepresentation and seeks damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs. On September 21, 2018, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss all of the claims that was opposed by the plaintiffs. On November 14, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining CMP from sending putative class members disconnection notices and/or disconnecting their power until this litigation is resolved. On February 22, 2019, the Cumberland County Superior Court ordered that the proceedings be stayed until November 1, 2019 to allow resolution of the Maine Public Utilities Commission's (MPUCs) formal investigation of CMP's billing practices and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. On July 30, 2019, Douglas Herling, chief executive officer of CMP, and Iberdrola, S.A. were added as defendants and additional claims alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act were added to the case. CMP and the Company removed the case to federal court and filed a Motion to Dismiss on September 30, 2019. On November 22, 2019, upon agreement of the parties, CMP and the Company withdrew its motion to dismiss without prejudice and the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint on or before January 31, 2020 to allow for the conclusion of the MPUC investigation into CMP's metering, billing, and customer communications practices. On January 30, 2020, the MPUC deliberated the metering, billing and customer communications investigation. The MPUC did find that with exception of certain localized and random errors, CMP's billing system is working as designed and there were no systemic errors in billing. The decision also included an administrative process to address unresolved customer complaints of high bills. The written order documenting these decisions will be issued by the MPUC. On January 31, 2020, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. On February 28, 2020, CMP and the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint Without Prejudice or to Stay Proceedings Pending Plaintiffs' Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. Avangrid said, "We cannot predict the outcome of this class action lawsuit." Avangrid, Inc. operates as an energy services holding company in the United States. It engages in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity, as well as distribution, transportation, and sale of natural gas. Avangrid, Inc. was founded in 1852 and is headquartered in Orange, Connecticut. Avangrid, Inc. is a subsidiary of Iberdrola, S.A. AVITECTURE INC: Improperly Pays Technicians' Wages, Rimaihi Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jarell Rimaihi, Cornelia Feenster and Timothy Scott, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. AVITECTURE, INC., d/b/a AVITECTURE, RIGHTECH, INC., d/b/a RIGHTECH, Case No. 1:20-cv-00930 (D.D.C., April 7, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for improperly paid wages due under a public contract and pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act. In the District of Columbia, the prevailing applicable rate for Journeyman Electrical Installers is over $37 per hour. In Virginia, the prevailing applicable rate for Journeyman Electricians is over $66 per hour. However, the Plaintiffs were only compensated at rates of pay ranging from $19-$22 per hour, without benefits, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as lead technicians and technicians on federally funded construction projects in the District of Columbia Metropolitan area. Avitecture is an electrical audio/visual contracting company which performs electrical construction and installation work for governmental entities and private parties.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Marc L. Gelman, Esq. Ryan McCarthy, Esq. JENNINGS SIGMOND, P.C. 1835 Market Street, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 351-0613 Fax: (215) 922-3524 Email: jgoodley@jslex.com mgelman@jslex.com rmccarthy@jslex.com BANCO BRADESCO: Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Ct. Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a judgment fully and finally approving a Class Action Settlement in the case captioned IN RE BANCO BRADESCO S.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-04155 (GHW), (S.D.N.Y.). Lead Plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class and defendants Banco Bradesco S.A. (Bradesco), Luiz Carlos Trabuco Cappi, and Luiz Carlos Angelotti, have entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement. This Court preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement, finding that the Parties demonstrated that the Court would likely be able to approve the Settlement as being fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the Settlement, this Action as a class action on behalf of a Settlement Class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the preferred American Depositary Shares (PADS) issued by Bradesco during the period from August 8, 2014 through July 27, 2016, inclusive, and were injured thereby. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants (ii) the individual Defendants' Immediate Family members (iii) any person who was an officer or director of Bradesco during the Settlement Class Period (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity in which a Defendant has or had a controlling interest (v) Bradesco's employee retirement and benefits plan(s) and their participants or beneficiaries, to the extent they made purchases or otherwise acquired PADS through such plans and (vi) the legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any persons and entities who or which excluded themselves from the Settlement Class by submitting a request for exclusion that is accepted by the Court, as listed on the attached Exhibit. Pursuant to, and in accordance with, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects (including, without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the Releases provided for therein; and the dismissal with prejudice of the claims asserted against Defendants in the Action), and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Settlement Class. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending, enter judgment, and close the case. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 18, 2019 Judgment is available at https://tinyurl.com/yx6o5b34 from Leagle.com. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Alfred Louis Fatale, III - afatale@labaton.com - Labaton & Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner - jgardner@labaton.com - Labaton Sucharow, LLP, Andrew L. Zivitz - azivitz@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, James P. McEvilly, III - jmcevilly@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Jason Matthew Kirschberg - jason@gadowtyler.com - Gadow Tyler, PLLC, Johnston De Forest Whitman, Jr. - jwhitman@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Margaret E. Mazzeo - mmazzeo@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard A. Russo, Jr.- rrusso@ktmc.com - Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. William Bryan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim – pkim@rosenlegal.com - The Rosen Law Firm. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Gardner- jgardner@labaton.com - Labaton Sucharow, LLP & Alfred Louis Fatale, III -afatale@labaton.com - Labaton & Sucharow LLP. Louis Jean, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim , The Rosen Law Firm. Public School Teachers Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago & Policemens Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Movants, represented by Robert Mark Roseman , Spector Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 BANK OF HAWAII: Settlement Accord Executed in Overdraft Fees Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of Hawaii Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the class action suit related to Overdraft Fees Suit have executed a settlement agreement subject to court approval. On September 9, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a Bank customer primarily alleging Bank of Hawaii's practice of determining whether consumer deposit accounts were overdrawn based on "available balance" (which deducts debit card transactions that have taken place but which have not yet been posted) was not properly applied or disclosed to customers. On December 6, 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement subject to court approval. The settlement provides for forgiveness of certain related and previously charged off overdraft fees, and a payment by the Company of $8.0 million into a class settlement fund the proceeds of which will be used to refund class members, and to pay attorneys' fees, administrative and other costs, in exchange for a complete release of all claims asserted against the Company. Bank of Hawaii said, "Although the Company previously established a $2.0 million reserve relating to this claim, the reserve has been increased to a total of $8.0 million as of December 31, 2019." Bank of Hawaii Corporation is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. BRONX BAR: Approval of Agreement and Release Bid in Cortes Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order denying Parties Motion to Approve Agreement and Release in the case captioned MOISES CORTES, Plaintiff, v. THE BRONX BAR AND GRILL, LLC et al, Defendants. No. 19-CV-2819 (SN). (S.D.N.Y.) The parties requested that the Court approve a Settlement Agreement and Release, under which Plaintiff would dismiss his FLSA claims with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff Moises Cortes (Plaintiff) brings claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law. There is a strong presumption in favor of finding a settlement fair, as the Court is generally not in as good a position as the parties to determine the reasonableness of an FLSA settlement. Release of Claims Provision In this Circuit, courts have rejected proposed agreements to settle claims arising under the FLSA when such agreements waive practically any possible claim against the defendants, including unknown claims and claims that have no relationship whatsoever to wage-and-hour issues. Although the FLSA places strict limits on an employee's ability to waive claims for fear that employers would otherwise coerce employees into settlement and waiver, these concerns are not as relevant under the circumstances in this case. First, the parties determined that $7,500.00 constitutes 100% of Plaintiff's potential recovery on his labor claims and that the additional payment of $3,000.00 therefore constitutes separate consideration given in exchange for the release of any and all non-complaint claims. Given that Plaintiff will receive a total amount slightly greater than 100% of his potential recovery, the broad release language triggers fewer concerns about employer coercion and supports a finding that the settlement sum is fair and reasonable. Second, Plaintiff no longer works for Defendant, lessening the risk that Plaintiff waived additional rights for fear of retaliation. Third, the release is mutual. For these reasons, the Court finds the Agreement's release language acceptable. Confidentiality Provision The Agreement also contains a confidentiality provision requiring Plaintiff to treat the existence and terms of the Agreement as confidential. The Agreement also prohibits Plaintiff from publishing the existence or terms of the Agreement, whether on social media, on the internet, or with the press, and will not in any way communicate he amount of the settlement. In this Circuit, courts routinely reject bids to keep FLSA settlements confidential. In doing, courts refer to both the presumptive principle of public access to court documents as well as the FLSA's purpose of ensuring widespread awareness of workers' rights. Here, of course, the Agreement will be filed on the public docket, but its terms gag the Plaintiff from discussing anything about his settlement. The scope of the confidentiality provision in this Agreement is not clearly limited. Plaintiff is required to treat the existence and terms of the Agreement as confidential. This language, in addition to specific prohibitions on publication including, for example, via the internet or social media, may imply a total restriction on the Plaintiff's ability to communicate the terms or existence of the Agreement with individuals other than those explicitly excepted in the provision, namely. The language prohibiting Plaintiff from discussing the amount received pursuant to the Agreement does not raise the same concerns because Plaintiff may still abide by that limitation while effectively communicating the existence and terms of the Agreement with others in furtherance of the FLSA's purposes. The Court will approve a future amended Agreement to the extent it includes a limited confidentiality provision prohibiting Plaintiff solely from disclosing the amount received under the Agreement subject to any exceptions contemplated by the present Agreement but not otherwise prohibiting Plaintiff from publishing truthful information about or discussing the existence or other terms of the Agreement. The revised request to approve the proposed settlement is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a new motion for approval. A full-text copy of the District Court's November 25, 2019 Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/tpa9w85 from Leagle.com. Moises Cortes, on behalf of himself & Moises Cortes, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, represented by Peter Hans Cooper - PCOOPER@JCPCLAW.COM - Cilenti & Cooper, PLLC. The Bronx Bar and Grill, LLC, doing business as Mott Haven Bar & Grill or any other business entity doing business as "Mott Haven Bar & Grill", located at 1 Bruckner Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10454 & Rosa Garcia, individually, Defendants, represented by R. Zachary Gelber -zgelber@gelbersantillo.com - Gelber & Santillo PLLC. CENTERSTATE BANK: Johnson Challenges Merger With South State ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CENTERSTATE BANK CORPORATION, ERNEST S. PINNER, CHARLES W. MCPHERSON, JAMES H. BINGHAM, MICHAEL J. BROWN, SR., CHARLES DENNIS CARLTON, MICHAEL F. CIFERRI, JOHN C. CORBETT, JODY JEAN DREYER, GRIFFIN A. GREENE, JOHN H. HOLCOMB III, RICHARD MURRAY IV, GEORGE TIERSO NUNEZ, THOMAS E. OAKLEY, G. RUFFNER PAGE, JR., WILLIAM KNOX POU, JR., DANIEL ROBERT RICHEY, DAVID G. SALYERS, JOSHUA A. SNIVELY, SR., and MARK W. THOMPSON, Case No. 1:20-cv-02905 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020), is brought on behalf of the public holders of the common stock of CenterState against it and the members of its board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed merger between CenterState and South State Corporation. On January 25, 2020, the Board caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger, pursuant to which the Company's shareholders stand to receive 0.3001 shares of South State common stock for each share of CenterState stock they own. Upon completion of the merger, CenterState shareholders will own approximately 53% and South State shareholders will own approximately 47% of the combined company. On March 16, 2019, in order to convince CenterState shareholders to vote in favor of the Proposed Transaction, the Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act, the Plaintiff alleges. The materially incomplete and misleading S-4 violates SEC Rule 14a-9. While touting the fairness of the Merger Consideration to the Company's shareholders in the S-4, Defendants have failed to disclose certain material information that is necessary for shareholders to properly assess the fairness of the Proposed Transaction, thereby violating SEC rules and regulations and rendering certain statements in the S-4 materially incomplete and misleading. In particular, the Plaintiff contends, the S-4 contains materially incomplete and misleading information concerning the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by the Company's financial advisor, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc. in support of its opinion that the Merger Consideration is fair to shareholders, on which the Board relied. The Plaintiff adds that it is imperative that the material information that has been omitted from the S-4 is disclosed prior to the forthcoming vote to allow the Company's shareholders to make an informed decision regarding the Proposed Transaction. For these reasons, the Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act based on Defendants' violation of Rule 14a-9. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless, and until, the incomplete material information is disclosed to CenterState shareholders sufficiently in advance of the vote on the Proposed Transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. The Plaintiff is a holder of CenterState common stock. CenterState is a financial holding company that provides a range of consumer and commercial banking services to individuals, businesses and industries through its national bank subsidiary, CenterState Bank, N.A.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-983-9330 Facsimile: 212-983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com CHEVRON STATIONS: Kabir FCRA Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled SYED AHMED KABIR v. CHEVRON STATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 20STCV05468 (Filed Feb. 11, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 29, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02603 to the proceeding. The complaint alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff contends that CSI, his former employer, failed to provide him with proper disclosures in conjunction with the employee background check it performed when it hired him in 2015. Chevron produces fuel for cars. The company offers gasoline, diesel, motor oils, fuel additives, and automotive transmission fluids.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Kokozian, Esq. KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC 9440 South Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510 Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4608 Telephone: 323.857.5900 Facsimile: 310.275.6301 Email: Bkokozian@kokozianlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert D. Eassa, Esq. Marc A. Koonin, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: 415 957 3000 Facsimile: 415 957 3001 E-mail: rdeassa@duanemorris.com makoonin@duanemorris.com CONCESIONARIA VUELA: Levey Sues Over Failure to Refund Airfare -------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Levey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONCESIONARIA VUELA COMPANÍA DE AVIACIÓN, S.A.P.I. DE C.V., and CONTROLADORA VUELA COMPANÍA DE AVIACIÓN, S.A.B. DE C.V., foreign corporations d/b/a "VOLARIS", Case No. 1:20-cv-02215 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2020), seeks relief for those who booked flights on Volaris for travel from the United States to Mexico and whose flights were canceled by Volaris during the novel coronavirus pandemic without refunding the amounts these passengers paid for airfare and requiring them to pay a penalty to rebook their travel. According to the complaint, Volaris canceled many of its flights to Mexico from the United States in the wake of the COVID-19 (Novel Coronavirus) pandemic. Although the United States temporarily closed its border with Mexico due to the pandemic, this restriction did not apply to air travel. When Volaris decided to cancel its flights to Mexico, without notice to its booked passengers, it offered no refunds and continues to deny the refunds to passengers, who seek them, despite its contract of carriage and United States Department of Transportation rules requiring refunds and/or required these passengers to pay a penalty to rebook their travel. Volaris' conduct gives rise to the Plaintiff's and the class' claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unconscionability and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased roundtrip airfare from Chicago Midway International Airport (MDW) in Chicago, Illinois, to Bajio International Airport (BJX) in Silao, Guanajuato, Mexico. The Defendants, collectively referred to by their trade name as "Volaris," are an ultra-low-cost air carrier founded in 2005, whose stock is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "VLRS".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Sweetnam, Esq. SWEETNAM LLC 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1440 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 757-1888 Email: wms@sweetnamllc.com CONOCOPHILLIPS: Stanley Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- William Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONOCOPHILLIPS D/B/A CONOCOPHILLIPS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00340 (S.D. Ill., April 8, 2020), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Defendant pays its pipeline inspectors a day rate with no overtime compensation, even though they work many hours in excess of forty hours per week, says the complaint. Plaintiff Stanley was employed by ConocoPhillips as a pipeline inspector in 2019 in Wood River, Illinois. ConocoPhillips is a multi-billion-dollar oil and gas behemoth with operations all over the world and in multiple states in the U.S. ConocoPhillips is headquartered in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com dmoulton@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com DCM SERVICES: Zurakov Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cindy Zurakov, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DCM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00570-PP (E.D. Wis., April 7, 2020), seeks redress for debt collection practices that violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Wisconsin Consumer Act. On January 7, 2020, DCM mailed a debt collection letter to the Plaintiff regarding an alleged debt. The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter contains contradictory and confusing representations about the identity of the creditor to whom the debt is owed. Confusing and misleading representations about the name of the creditor are material misrepresentations because they create the potential for fraud or double-payments. The Letter fails to unequivocally identify the current creditor to whom the Plaintiff's alleged debt is owed; hence, the Defendant violated the FDCPA and WCA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is an individual, who resides in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. DCM is engaged in the business of a collection agency, using the mails and telephone to collect consumer debts originally owed to others.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Jesse Fruchter, Esq. Ben J. Slatky, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 Email: jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com jfruchter@ademilaw.com bjslatky@ademilaw.com EASTSIDE PIZZA: Valladares Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar B. Valladares, and other similarly situated individuals v. EASTSIDE PIZZA, INC., and DAWN M. HURLBURT, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-21495-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), is brought to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, and retaliatory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after November 2019, without being properly compensated, says the complaint. The Defendants willfully failed to pay the Plaintiff regular and overtime hours at the rate of time and one-half his regular rate for every hour that he worked in excess of 40, in violation of the FLSA. The Plaintiff was hired as a non-exempted full-time restaurant employee. Eastside Pizza is an Italian and pizza restaurant located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com EHEALTH INC: Patel Sues Over Drop in Market Value of Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jigneshkumar B. Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. eHEALTH, INC., SCOTT N. FLANDERS, DEREK N. YUNG, and DAVID K. FRANCIS, Case No. 5:20-cv-02395 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), arises from the Defendants' violations of securities laws that resulted to the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired eHealth, Inc. common stock between March 19, 2018, and April 7, 2020, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In violation of the Exchange Act, eHealth misled investors as to its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions, the significant increase in member churn after eHealth adopted Accounting Standards Codification 606 on January 1, 2018, and its booking of multiple years of revenue at one time, according to the complaint. This has led to inflated financial results. Based on these representations, eHealth's stock price soared to a high of $152.19 per share. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors, the Plaintiff alleges. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose to investors: (1) its highly aggressive accounting and modeling assumptions; (2) its skyrocketing rate of member churn, resulting from eHealth's pursuit of low quality, lossmaking growth; (3) its reliance on direct response television advertising, which attracts an unprofitable, high churn enrollee; and (4) as a result, the Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Before the markets opened on April 8, 2020, analyst Muddy Waters Research published a report in which it wrote that "EHTH's highly aggressive accounting masks what we believe is a significantly unprofitable business." Muddy Waters continued that "EHTH's persistence assumptions in its LTV2 model seem highly aggressive when compared to reality," and that "after ASC 606 went into effect, member churn immediately skyrocketed," and that "EHTH is pursuing low quality, lossmaking growth while its LTVs are based on lower churn, pre-growth cohorts." On this news, the stock plummeted from its April 7, 2020 closing price of $116.02 per share to an April 8, 2020 closing price of $103.20 per share, a one day drop of $12.82 or approximately 12%. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired shares of eHealth common stock at artificially inflated prices. eHealth is a health insurance marketplace with a technology and service platform that provides consumer engagement, education, and health insurance enrollment solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94110 Phone: (415) 968-1852 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: wstreet@blockesq.com - and – Jacob A. Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: jake@blockesq.com EVENTBRITE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was slated to hold a hearing on April 16 to consider the motion to dismiss the complaint in In re Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:19-cv-02019 (N.D. Cal.). On March 6, the Court granted a Stipulation and Proposed Order continuing the hearing on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss to April 16. Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that beginning on April 15, 2019, purported stockholders of the company filed two putative securities class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and three putative securities class action complaints in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo, against the company, certain of its executives and directors, and its underwriters for the initial public offering (IPO). Some of these actions also name as defendants venture capital firms that were our investors as of the IPO. On August 22, 2019, the federal court consolidated the two pending actions and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. The consolidated federal case is titled In re Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, 5:19-cv-02019-EJD (the Federal Action). On October 11, 2019, the lead plaintiffs in the Federal Action filed their amended consolidated complaint. The amended complaint generally alleges that the company misrepresented and/or omitted material information in the company's IPO offering documents, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint also challenges public statements made after the IPO in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents, or between September 20, 2018 and May 1, 2019, inclusive. On December 11, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was first set for April 9. Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. EVENTBRITE INC: Hearing on Demurrers Set for May 1 -------------------------------------------------- Eventbrite, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the class action suit entitled, In re Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No, 19-CIV-02798, has set a hearing on May 1, 2020 to decide anticipated demurrers. On June 24, 2019, the state court consolidated two state actions pending at that time. The consolidated state case is titled In re Eventbrite, Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No, 19-CIV-02798 (the State Action). On July 24, 2019, the two plaintiffs in the State Action filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally alleges that the company misrepresented and/or omitted material information in the company's initial public offering (IPO) offering documents, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief on behalf of investors who purchased the company's Class A common stock issued pursuant and/or traceable to the IPO offering documents. On August 23, 2019, defendants filed demurrers to the consolidated complaint. A third state-court action was filed on August 23, 2019. On September 11, 2019, that complaint was consolidated into the operative complaint filed on July 24, 2019, and the court ordered that the arguments in defendants' pending demurrers would apply to that newly filed complaint. At the hearing on defendants' demurrers on November 1, 2019, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend. On December 13, 2019, the court granted requests by two plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss their claims without prejudice. The remaining plaintiff and two new named plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint (FAC) on February 10, 2020. Defendants' deadline to file their anticipated demurrers to the FAC is March 26, 2020, and the court has set a hearing on May 1, 2020 to decide the anticipated demurrers. Eventbrite, Inc., incorporated on October 20, 2009, provides a global platform for live experiences. The Company's platform allows anyone to create, share, find and attend events. It enable events ranging from fundraisers, seminars, wellness activities and music festivals to classes and cultural celebrations all over the world. The company is based in San Francisco, California. EVERI HOLDINGS: Jessop Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Mat Jessop is encompassed in the settlement of the case, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al., and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue. Mat Jessop, et al. v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., is a putative class action matter filed on October 15, 2018, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. Everi FinTech was added as a defendant on December 21, 2018. Penn National Gaming, Inc. ("Penn National") was dismissed by the Court with prejudice on October 28, 2019, leaving only claims against Everi FinTech. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi FinTech has been unjustly enriched through the charging of service fees for transactions conducted at Penn National facilities. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against both parties, and an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. This matter is encompassed in the settlement of the Donahue matter, and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVERI HOLDINGS: Rehman Suit Awaits Settlement Approval in Donahue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit initiated by Oneeb Rehman is encompassed in the settlement of the case, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al., and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue. Oneeb Rehman, et al. v. Everi FinTech and Everi Holdings, is a putative class action matter pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division filed on October 16, 2018. The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company have violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. This matter is encompassed in the settlement of the Donahue matter, and will be dismissed upon court approval of the settlement in Donahue. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVERI HOLDINGS: Settlement Reached in Donahue Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Everi Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a settlement has been reached in the class action suit entitled, Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et. al. Geraldine Donahue, et al. v. Everi FinTech, et al. ("Donahue"), is a putative class action matter filed on December 12, 2018, in Cook County, Illinois. The original defendant was dismissed and the Company was substituted as defendant on April 22, 2019. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleges that Everi FinTech and the Company have violated certain provisions of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Plaintiff seeks an award of statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The parties have reached an agreement in principle for settlement of this matter, which will include settlement and resolution of all the FACTA-related matters pending against the Company and Everi FinTech. The settlement requires court approval, which the parties are in the process of working to obtain. Everi Holdings Inc., incorporated on February 4, 2004, is a holding company. The Company operates through subsidiaries, including Everi Games Holding Inc. (Everi Games Holding) and Everi Payments Inc. (Everi Payments or Payments). The Company operates through two segments: Games and FinTech. The Company provides video and mechanical reel gaming content and technology solutions, integrated gaming payments solutions, and compliance and efficiency software. The company is based in Las Vegas, Nevada. EVOLENT HEALTH: Bid to Dismiss Plymouth Retirement Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Evolent Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the class action suit entitled, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, is pending. On August 8, 2019, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action complaint against the Company, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. An amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2020. The case, Plymouth County Retirement System v. Evolent Health, Inc., Frank Williams, Nicholas McGrane, Seth Blackley, Christie Spencer, and Steven Wigginton, alleges that the Company's executives made false or misleading statements regarding its business with Passport. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 6, 2020. Briefing on the motion is expected to be complete in March 2020. Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), all discovery in the case is stayed until the motion to dismiss is decided upon by the court. Evolent said, "Based on the Company's investigation so far, we believe the case has little legal or factual merit. However, the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, and at this early stage, the Company is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or estimate a range of potential loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit." Evolent Health, Inc., through its subsidiary, Evolent Health LLC, provides health care delivery and payment solutions in the United States. The company operates through two segments, Services and True Health. Evolent Health, Inc. was founded in 2011 and is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. FGL HOLDINGS: Accord in Brokerage Insurance Suit Has Initial OK --------------------------------------------------------------- FGL Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the settlement in the class action suit initiated by the Brokerage Insurance Partners, has been preliminarily approved. On June 30, 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against FGL Insurance, FGL, and FS Holdco II Ltd in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, captioned Brokerage Insurance Partners v. Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Fidelity & Guaranty Life, FS Holdco II Ltd, and John Doe, No. 17-cv-1815. The complaint alleges that FGL Insurance breached the terms of its agency agreement with Brokerage Insurance Partners ("BIP") and other agents by changing certain compensation terms. The complaint asserts, among other causes of action, breach of contract, defamation, tortious interference with contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). The complaint seeks to certify a class composed of all persons who entered into an agreement with FGL Insurance to sell life insurance and who sold at least one life insurance policy between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2017. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in an amount not presently determinable, among other forms of relief. On September 1, 2017, FGL Insurance filed a counterclaim against BIP and John and Jane Does 1-10, asserting, among other causes of action, breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy and violations of RICO. On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, and on October 16, 2017, FGL Insurance filed an Amended Counterclaim against BIP, Agent Does 1-10, and Other Person Does 1-10. The parties also filed cross-Motions to Dismiss in Part. On August 17, 2018, the Court in the BIP Litigation denied all pending Motions to Dismiss filed by all parties without prejudice, pending a decision as to whether the BIP Litigation will be consolidated into related litigation, captioned Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company v. Network Partners, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1508. On August 31, 2018, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to BIP's Amended Complaint. Also on that date, FGL Insurance filed its Answer to Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(4)(A). On October 15, 2019, BIP filed with the Court an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Class Certification, along with a copy of the Class Action Settlement Agreement signed by all parties. A Fairness Hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement was held on Monday, January 13, 2020. On January 15, 2020, the Court issued the Modified Findings and Order Preliminarily Approving Class Settlement Between Plaintiff and Defendants, Granting Conditional Certification of Settlement Class, Directing Issuance of Notice to the Class, and Setting of Final Approval Hearing. In preliminarily approving the Class Settlement, the Court also approved the Settlement Schedule that had been filed by Class Counsel on January 10, 2020. FGL Holdings said, "Final settlement is subject to, among other requirements, satisfactory completion of confirmatory discovery by the Defendants and the Class Representative and final approval by the Court after Court-approved Notice has been provided to the absent members of the putative class." FGL Holdings sells individual life insurance products and annuities in the United States. The company offers deferred annuities, including fixed indexed annuity contracts and fixed rate annuity contracts; immediate annuities; and life insurance products. FGL Holdings is headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa. FIFTH THIRD: Bid for Class Certification Due April 20 ----------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the class action suit entitled, In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851), is currently due April 20, 2020. On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v. Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% Annual Percentage Rate (APR) that Fifth Third disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early Access Cash Advance Litigation (Case No. 1:12-CV-00851). On behalf of a putative class, the plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary and statutory damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). On January 10, 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion to hear the immediate appeal of the dismissal of their breach of contract claim. On March 28, 2018, the court granted plaintiffs' motion and stayed the TILA claim pending that appeal. On April 26, 2018, plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal for the breach of contract claim with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 28, 2019, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and remanded for further proceedings. The plaintiffs' claimed damages for the alleged breach of contract claim exceed $280 million. Under the Court's scheduling order, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification is currently due April 20, 2020. No trial date has been set. Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. FIFTH THIRD: Settlement of Damages Class Wins Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has entered an order granting final approval for the settlement of the Plaintiff Damages Class in the case, In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720. In April 2006, Bancorp was added as a defendant in a consolidated antitrust class action lawsuit originally filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R) and several other major financial institutions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (In re: Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-MD-1720). The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claimed that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks were unreasonable and sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In addition to being a named defendant, the Bancorp is currently also subject to a possible indemnification obligation of Visa as discussed in Note 19 and has also entered into judgment and loss sharing agreements with Visa, MasterCard and certain other named defendants. In October 2012, the parties to the litigation entered into a settlement agreement. On January 14, 2014, the trial court entered a final order approving the class settlement. A number of merchants filed appeals from that approval. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a hearing on those appeals and on June 30, 2016, reversed the district court's approval of the class settlement, remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On March 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to review the Second Circuit's decision. Pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, the Bancorp had previously paid $46 million into a class settlement escrow account. Approximately 8,000 merchants requested exclusion from the class settlement, and therefore, pursuant to the terms of the overturned settlement agreement, approximately 25% of the funds paid into the class settlement escrow account had been already returned to the control of the defendants. The remaining settlement funds paid by the Bancorp have been maintained in the escrow account. More than 500 of the merchants who requested exclusion from the class filed separate federal lawsuits against Visa, MasterCard and certain other defendants alleging similar antitrust violations. These individual federal lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. While the Bancorp is only named as a defendant in one of the individual federal lawsuits, it may have obligations pursuant to indemnification arrangements and/or the judgment or loss sharing agreements. On September 17, 2018, the defendants in the consolidated class action signed a second settlement agreement (the "Amended Settlement Agreement") resolving the claims seeking monetary damages by the proposed plaintiffs' class (the "Plaintiff Damages Class") and superseding the original settlement agreement entered into in October 2012. The Amended Settlement Agreement included, among other terms, a release from participating class members for liability for claims that accrue no later than five years after the Amended Settlement Agreement becomes final. The Amended Settlement Agreement provided for a total payment by all defendants of approximately $6.24 billion, composed of approximately $5.34 billion held in escrow plus an additional $900 million in new funds. However, the Settlement Agreement also provided that if between 15% and 25% of class members (by payment volume) opted out of the class, up to $700 million of the additional settlement funds would be returned to the defendants. It has now been determined that more than 25% of the class members have elected to opt out of the Amended Settlement Agreement, and, therefore, $700 million of the additional $900 million has been returned to the defendants. The Bancorp's allocated share of the settlement is within existing reserves, including funds maintained in escrow. On December 13, 2019, the Court entered an order granting final approval for the settlement. The settlement does not resolve the claims of the separate proposed plaintiffs' class seeking injunctive relief or the claims of merchants who have opted out of the proposed class settlement and are pursuing, or may in the future decide to pursue, private lawsuits. Fifth Third said, "The ultimate outcome in this matter, including the timing of resolution, therefore remains uncertain." Fifth Third Bancorp operates as a diversified financial services company in the United States. Fifth Third Bancorp was founded in 1858 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. GANNETT CO: Scarantino & Steiner Class Suits Voluntarily Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Gannett Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suits entitled, Scarantino v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al. and Steiner v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., have been voluntarily dismissed. On August 5, 2019, Gannett's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with New Media. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Gannett's stockholders will receive $6.25 in cash and 0.5427 of a share of New Media stock for each share of Gannett common stock they own. On August 29, 2019, defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. Following the August 5, 2019 announcement of the company's pending acquisition of Legacy Gannett, a total of six lawsuits were filed in various jurisdictions: Stein v. Gannett Co. Inc, et al., filed on September 11, 2019 (D. Del.), Scarantino v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on September 16, 2019 (D. Del.), Humbert v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on September 30, 2019 (S.D.N.Y.), Steiner v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on October 2, 2019 (D. Del.), Litwin v. Gannett Co. Inc., et al., filed on October 17, 2019 (S.D.N.Y.), and Johnson v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al., filed on October 23, 2019 (D. Del.). The plaintiffs in each action allege, among other things, the company and individual defendants violated Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by providing inadequate disclosure regarding the proposed acquisition either in the registration statement on Form S-4 filed by New Media with the SEC or in the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the company with the SEC. The plaintiffs variously sought, among other things, to enjoin or rescind the acquisition, an award of damages in the event the acquisition is consummated, and an award of costs and attorney's fees; plaintiffs in Scarantino and Steiner also seek class action certification. All of the lawsuits have been voluntarily dismissed. Gannett Co. Inc., is a leading international, multi-platform news and information company delivering high-quality, trusted content where and when consumers want to engage with it on virtually any device or platform. In addition, the Company provides a wide variety of online marketing, digital advertising, software-as-a-service, and web presence solutions to small and medium sized businesses through its wholly-owned subsidiary ReachLocal. The company is based in McLean, Virginia. GLOBAL CONTACT: Court Certifies No Consent Class ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as LAP DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. GLOBAL CONTACT - INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 1:19-cv-06317-RMB-KMW (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Renee Marie Bumb entered an order: 1. granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and for leave to take discovery prior to entry of final judgment; 2. conditionally certifying the Plaintiff's proposed "No Consent Class," defined as: "all persons and entities who (i) in the four years preceding the filing of this action, (ii) received a telephone facsimile advertisement, (iii) sent by, or on behalf of, Global Contact, (iv) for whom Global Contact did not have a record of prior express consent to send the facsimile advertisements at the time they were sent," with the exclusions outlined in the Plaintiff's motion"; 3. appointing Lap Distributors Inc. as Class Representative and appoiniting Adam T. Savett and Savett Law Offices LLC as Class Counsel; 4. permitting the Plaintiff to leave to take discovery for the purposes of identifying members of the class and determining potential damages prior to the entry of final judgment; and 5. directing the Plaintiff to submit a motion for final certification, or a status report regarding its discovery efforts, within 90 days of this Order. Global Contact is an import / export management company.[CC] GOTHAM PROCESS: Burks Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as JACKIE BURKS; BRUNILDA PAGAN CRUZ; VENUS CUADRADO; and RHONDA DRYE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. GOTHAM PROCESS, INC.; MULLOOLY, JEFFERY, ROONEY & FLYNN, LLP; BASSEM ELASHRAFI; and CARL BOUTON, Case No. 20 Civ. 1001 (RPK) (SMG) (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a proposed class; 2. appointing Jackie Burks, Brunilda Pagan Cruz, Venus Cuadrado, and Rhonda Drye as the class representatives; and 3. appointing NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP (NYLAG) as class counsel. New York-based Gotham is in the chewing and smoking tobacco and snuff industry.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jessica Ranucci, Esq. Julia Russell, Esq. Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. Shanna Tallarico, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5000 GREEN DOT: Continues to Defend Koffsmon Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E. On December 18, 2019, an alleged class action entitled Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and two of its officers. The suit asserts purported claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act for allegedly misleading statements regarding the company's business strategy. Plaintiff alleges that defendants made statements that were misleading because they allegedly failed to disclose details regarding the company's customer acquisition strategy and its impact on the company's financial performance. The suit is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities between May 9, 2018 and November 7, 2019, and seeks compensatory damages, fees and costs. Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GREEN DOT: Faces Hellman Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Green Dot Corporation said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending against a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC. On February 18, 2020, a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action entitled Hellman v. Streit, et al, No. 20-cv-01572-SVW-PVC was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California, against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The suit avers purported breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment claims, as well as claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, on the basis of the same wrongdoing alleged in the Koffsmon v. Green Dot Corp., et al., No. 19-cv-10701-DDP-E. The suit does not define the purported class allegedly damaged. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaints in these matters. Green Dot said, "Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Green Dot Corporation is a provider of reloadable prepaid debit cards and cash reload processing services in the United States. It is also a leader in mobile technology and mobile banking with its GoBank mobile checking account. The company is based in Pasadena, California. GREENSKY INC: Continues to Defend IPO Related Class Suits in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- GreenSky, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend class action suits related to its initial public offering. The Company and certain of its officers and directors, together with certain underwriters of the Company's initial public offering (IPO), were named in six putative class actions filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, all of which actions have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Index No. 655626/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (the "State Case")), and in two putative class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, both of which actions also have been consolidated (In Re GreenSky, Inc. Securities Litigation (Consolidated Action), Case No. 1:2018-cv-11071-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Federal Case" and, together with the State Case, the "Consolidated Cases")). The plaintiffs in the Consolidated Cases generally assert on behalf of certain purchasers in the Company's IPO claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Company and its officers and directors named in the Consolidated Cases intend to defend themselves vigorously in all respects in regard thereto. Under certain circumstances, the Company may be obligated to indemnify some or all of the other defendants in the Consolidated Cases. The Company is unable to estimate the amount of reasonably possible losses it may incur with respect to the Consolidated Cases. GreenSky said, "Moreover, because the Company has not determined that the likelihood of loss is probable, the Company has not recorded any liability as of December 31, 2019 with respect to either the Federal Case or the State Case." GreenSky, Inc., a technology company, provides point-of-sale financing and payment solutions to merchants, consumers, and banks. It offers a proprietary technology infrastructure that support the full transaction lifecycle, including credit application, underwriting, real-time allocation to bank partners, document distribution, funding, settlement, and servicing functions. The company was incorporated in 2017 and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. GTT COMMUNICATIONS: Still Faces Securities Action in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- GTT Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982), pending before the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On July 30, 2019, a purported class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:19-cv-00982) on behalf of certain GTT stockholders. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements and omissions of purportedly material fact, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, in connection with disclosures relating to GTT's acquisition and integration of Interoute Communications Holdings S.A. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. The Company believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. GTT Communications said, "The lawsuit is in the early stages and, at this time, no assessment can be made as to its likely outcome or whether the outcome will be material to the Company." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. GTT Communications, Inc. provides cloud networking services to multinational enterprises, carriers, and government customers in the United States, Europe, and internationally. The Company was formerly known as Global Telecom & Technology, Inc. and changed its name to GTT Communications, Inc. in January 2014. GTT Communications, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in McLean, Virginia. GULFPORT ENERGY: Lefort Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Bryon Lefort, individually and on behalf of all other members of the general public similarly situated v. GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-01792-SDM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, April 8, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio's Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant in excess of 40 hours each week. However, the workers never received overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA and the Ohio Acts, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff as independent contractors and paid them a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Plaintiff Bryon Lefort worked for the Defendant as a "Lease Operator," also known as a well tender, from September 2014 to February 2020. The Defendants operate and manage approximately 20 to "31 health care facilities in Ohio and Kentucky with each facility managed by an on-site team".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Road, Ste. 126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com HAYAT PHARMACY: Hajjat Seek to Certify Class of Delivery Drivers ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as OMAR HAJJAT v. HAYAT PHARMACY, LLC and HASHIM ZAIBAK, Case No. 19-cv-01857-LA (E.D. Wisc., Filed Dec. 18, 2019), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a class of: current and former "Delivery Drivers" who worked for the Defendants and were compensated as independent contractors from December 18, 2016 to the present; 2. directing the Defendants to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel within 14 days of the Order granting this Motion a list containing the names, the last known addresses; phone numbers; and e-mail addresses, for putative class members; 3. authorizing the Plaintiff's counsel to send notice to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by the Defendants' counsel by first-class mail, text message, and e-mail; 4. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel with 45 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff; and 5. permitting the Plaintiff's counsel to send a reminder notice half-way through the notice period. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' Delivery Drivers, including himself, were/are not paid proper overtime compensation due to them as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for all hours worked. While the Defendants deny that the payment practices were in violation of the FLSA, the Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify collective action. The Defendants are a retail establishment that sells pharmaceutical drugs and sundries, and operate multiple locations throughout Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael N. Hanna, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (313) 251-1399 E-mail: mhanna@forthepeople.com HOLLOWAY CREDIT: Muse Suit Seeks to Certify Consumers Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JUANITA MUSE, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers v. HOLLOWAY CREDIT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-02499-CMR (E.D. Pa., Filed June 7, 2019), the Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of: "all consumers with a Pennsylvania address for which Defendant sent a collection letter during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this initial action and ending 21 days after the service of the initial complaint filed in this action." This action arises from the Defendant's violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in its attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff. HCS is a third-party collection agency based in Alabama.[CC] Attorneys for the Plaintiff are: Nicholas Linker, Esq. Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 1373 Broad St. Suite 203C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com nl@zemellawllc.com HUSA LH: Hernandez Suit Over FLSA Violation Moved to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ENID HERNANDEZ, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. HUSA LH JF, LLC, a foreign limited liability corporation registered in Florida and d/b/a LIFE HOUSE LITTLE HAVANA, and HANK MORRIS, an individual, and GARRETT SOLOMON, an individual, Case 2020-000367-CC-01 (Filed Feb. 7, 2020), was removed from the Florida Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 19, 2020. The Southern District of Florida Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-21204-XXXX to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claim against the Defendants for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in hotel operation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa Kuhlman Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300-71st Street, South 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 E-mail: lkuhlman.jhzidellpa@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary Ruth Houston, Esq. Jaclyn S. Clark, Esq. SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP 300 S. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32801-5403 Telephone: (407) 423-3200 Facsimile: (407) 425-8316 E-mail: mhouston@shutts.com mljohnson@shutts.com jclark@shutts.com mljohnson@shutts.com IMPINJ INC: Trial in W.D. Wash. Securities Suit Set for Feb. 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impinj, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a trial date has been set for February 1, 2021, in the consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. On August 7, 2018, a class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the company, its chief executive officer and chief operating officer. Captioned Schultz v. Impinj, Inc., et al, the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 7, 2018 through and including August 2, 2018, asserted claims that the company's quarterly statement filed on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2018 and a concurrent press release made false or misleading statements about the company's business prospects and financial condition. The complaint sought monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 3, 2018, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this complaint. On August 27, 2018, a second-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Montemarano v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from May 4, 2017 through and including August 2, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements in the company's financial statements, press releases and conference calls during the purported class period in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On October 2, 2018, a third-class action complaint for violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the company, its chief executive officer, chief operating officer and former chief financial officer. Captioned Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Impinj, Inc., et al., the complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's common stock from November 3, 2016 through and including February 15, 2018, asserts claims that the company made false or misleading statements about customer demand for the company's products and inventory in SEC filings, press releases and conference calls in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs and expenses. On January 14, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington consolidated the Montemarano and Baton Rouge actions and appointed the Employees' Retirement System of the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge as lead plaintiff. On February 13, 2019, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that from July 21, 2016 through February 15, 2018, the company made false or misleading statements about customer demand and the capability of the company's products and platform in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act. On March 19, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on October 4, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim against our President and chief operating officer, dismissed product capability-related allegations against our former chief financial officer, and dismissed allegations that defendants made false or misleading statements concerning increasing demand prior to the first quarter of 2017. The court denied the motion as to all other claims and defendants. A trial date has been set for February 1, 2021. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Impinj, Inc. operates a platform that enables wireless connectivity for everyday items by delivering each items unique identity, location, and authenticity to business and consumer applications. Impinj, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. INDEPENDENT BANK: Trial in BOH Holdings Merger Suit to Begin 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Independent Bank Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Court has amended the scheduling order to now provide that the case related to the acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc., is ready for trial on January 11, 2021. Independent Bank is a party to a legal proceeding inherited by Independent Bank in connection with the Company's acquisition of BOH Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Bank of Houston, or BOH, that was completed on April 15, 2014. Several entities related to R. A. Stanford, or the Stanford Entities, including Stanford International Bank, Ltd., or SIBL, had deposit accounts at BOH. Certain individuals who had purchased certificates of deposit from SIBL filed a class action lawsuit against several banks, including BOH, on November 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a case styled Peggy Roif Rotstain, et al. on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Trustmark National Bank, et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-02384-N-BG. The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were victims of fraud by SIBL and other Stanford Entities and seeks to recover damages and alleged fraudulent transfers by the defendant banks. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting permission to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint in this case, which motion was subsequently granted. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserted previously unasserted claims, including aiding and abetting or participation in a fraudulent scheme based upon the large amount of deposits that the Stanford Entities held at BOH and the alleged knowledge of certain BOH officers. The plaintiffs seek recovery from Independent Bank and other defendants for their losses. The case was inactive due to a court-ordered discovery stay issued March 2, 2015 pending the Court's ruling on plaintiff's motion for class certification and designation of class representatives and counsel. On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion. In addition, the Court lifted the previously ordered discovery stay. On January 11, 2018, the Court entered a scheduling order providing that the case be ready for trial on January 27, 2020. However, due to agreed upon extensions of discovery on July 25, 2019, the Court amended the scheduling order to now provide that the case be ready for trial on January 11, 2021. The Company has experienced an increase in legal fees associated with the defense of this claim and anticipates further increases in legal fees as the case proceeds to trial. Independent Bank notified its insurance carriers of the claims made in the Second Amended Complaint. The insurance carriers have initially indicated that the claims are not covered by the policies or that a "loss" has not yet occurred. Independent Bank pursued insurance coverage as well as reimbursement of defense costs through the initiation of litigation and other means. On November 6, 2018, the Company settled claims under its Financial Institutions Select Policy pursuant to which the Company received payment of an amount which is not material to the operations of the Company. The Company did not settle any claims under its Financial Institution Bond Policy. Independent Bank believes that the claims made in this lawsuit are without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. Independent Bank said, "This is complex litigation involving a number of procedural matters and issues. As such, Independent Bank is unable to predict when this matter may be resolved and, given the uncertainty of litigation, the ultimate outcome of, or potential costs or damages arising from, this case." Independent Bank Group, Inc. operates as a national commercial bank. The Bank offers personal and business banking services. Independent Bank provides personal checking accounts, loans, debit and credit cards, mobile banking, and investment services. Independent Bank Group serves customers in the State of Texas. The company is based in McKinney, Texas. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS: Tiefenthaler Sues Over Violation of TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Tiefenthaler, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. INTERCONTINENTAL HOTELS GROUP RESOURCES, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10689 (D. Mass., April 8, 2020), arises from a campaign by the Defendant to market its services through the use of automated telemarketing calls, in plain violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call List, which is a separate and additional violation of the TCPA. The recipients of the Defendant's illegal calls, which include the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under the TCPA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Hans Tiefenthaler is an individual citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. InterContinental Hotels Group, LLC is a foreign limited liability company with a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LABORATORY CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in NC ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend consolidated Bouffard and Anderson class action suit. On March 10, 2017, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Victoria Bouffard, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company's patient list prices unlawfully exceed the rates negotiated for the same services with private and public health insurers in violation of various state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit also alleges breach of implied contract or quasi-contract, unjust enrichment, and fraud. The lawsuit seeks statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. In May 2017, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint and Strike Class Allegations; the Motion to Dismiss was granted in March 2018 without prejudice. On October 10, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, Sheryl Anderson, et al. v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The complaint contained similar allegations and sought similar relief to the Bouffard complaint, and added additional counts regarding state consumer protection laws. On August 10, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, which consolidated the Bouffard and Anderson actions. On September 10, 2018, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint and Strike Class Allegations. On August 16, 2019, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint, and denying the Motion to Strike the Class Allegations. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Florida Supreme Court to Hear Appeal in "Davis" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Florida Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction of the class action suit entitled, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al. On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America, et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. In April 2017, the Circuit Court granted the Company's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court's ruling to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. On October 16, 2019, the Court of Appeal reversed the Circuit Court's dismissal, but certified a controlling issue of Florida law to the Florida Supreme Court. On February 17, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the lawsuit. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Sequenom, Inc. Shareholders' Suit Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, remains stayed. Prior to the Company's acquisition of Sequenom Inc. (Sequenom) between August 15, 2016, and August 24, 2016, six putative class-action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purported Sequenom stockholders (captioned Malkoff v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, Gupta v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02084-JAH-KSC, Fruchter v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02101-WQH-KSC, Asiatrade Development Ltd. v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02113-AJB-JMA, Nunes v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02128-AJB-MDD, and Cusumano v. Sequenom, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-02134-LAB-JMA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the acquisition transaction. The complaints asserted claims against Sequenom and members of its board of directors (the Individual Defendants). The Nunes action also named the Company and Savoy Acquisition Corp. (Savoy), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, as defendants. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 14(e), 14(d)(4) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose certain allegedly material information. In addition, the complaints in the Malkoff action, Asiatrade action, and the Cusumano action alleged that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Sequenom shareholders. The actions sought, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the merger. On August 30, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in each of the above-referenced actions. On September 6, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating for all pre-trial purposes the six individual actions described above under the caption In re Sequenom, Inc. Shareholder Litig., Lead Case No. 16-cv-02054-JAH-BLM, and designating the complaint from the Malkoff action as the operative complaint for the consolidated action. On November 11, 2016, two competing motions were filed by two separate stockholders (James Reilly and Shikha Gupta) seeking appointment as lead plaintiff under the terms of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On June 7, 2017, the Court entered an order declaring Mr. Reilly as the lead plaintiff and approving Mr. Reilly's selection of lead counsel. The parties agree that the MOU has been terminated. The Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on July 24, 2017, and the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, which remains pending. On March 13, 2019, the Court stayed the action in its entirety pending the U.S. Supreme Court's anticipated decision in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian. On April 23, 2019, however, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari in Emulex as improvidently granted. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends Feckley Class Suit Over Commissions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al. On December 20, 2018, the Company was served with a putative class action lawsuit, Feckley v. Covance Inc., et al., filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange. The complaint alleges that Covance Inc. violated the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code by failing to properly pay commissions to employees under a sales incentive compensation plan upon their termination of employment. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, civil penalties, punitive damages, and recovery of attorney's fees and costs. On January 22, 2018, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Company will vigorously defend the lawsuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings operates as an independent clinical laboratory company worldwide. It operates through two segments, LabCorp Diagnostics and Covance Drug Development. The company was founded in 1971 and is headquartered in Burlington, North Carolina. LANXESS CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Wright Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chester Wright, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LANXESS CORPORATION, Case No. 4:20-cv-00388-BSM (E.D. Ark., April 8, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the others proper overtime compensation for all hours worked. The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week while working for the Defendant. The Defendant paid an improper overtime rate because the Defendant failed to include the value of the bonuses that the Defendant provided to the Plaintiffs when calculating their overtime rate, says the complaint. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserts, the Defendant violated the FLSA by not including all forms of compensation, such as bonuses, in the regular rate when calculating the Plaintiff's overtime pay. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a fabrication cutter in the Defendant's rubber production plant. The Defendant is a specialty chemicals company that conducts business within the State of Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tess Bradford, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: tess@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS: Madhat Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Madhat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LIPSEY COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C. d/b/a CONNECTIVITY SOURCE, Case No. 5:20-cv-00764-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 8, 2020), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Ohio wage and hour laws for unpaid overtime wages. According to the complaint, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and others for all of their hours worked, including at overtime rates where necessary, as the law requires. The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. Much of this overtime work is off-the-clock. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who worked as an hourly-paid Retail Assistant Manager, and the similarly situated employees are not credited and therefore not compensated for off-the-clock work overtime, says the complaint. Lipsey Communications L.L.C., doing business as Connectivity Source, "is a Sprint Authorized Retailer with 319 stores in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Colorado, Wyoming, Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Texas."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Booker, Esq. PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE & CONWAY, APLC 1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610 Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216) 589-9280 Facsimile: (888) 411-0038 Email: jbooker@pwcklegal.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 951 Yamato Road, Suite 285 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com tgivens@shavitzlaw.com - and - Michael Palitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A 800 Third Avenue, Suite 2800 New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 616-4000 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 Email: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Scott L. Gordon, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com sgordon@schneiderwallace.com LOCUMS INC: Faces Katz TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Adverts ------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce E. Katz, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Juva Skin and Laser Center, a New York professional corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. LOCUMS INC., a Georgia corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-02899 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2020), challenges the Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile, in violation the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. According to the complaint, on October 8, 2019, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff an unsolicited fax advertisement in violation of the TCPA. The Defendant's unsolicited faxes have damaged the Plaintiff and the class in that a junk fax recipient loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class, which were sent the Fax and other unsolicited fax advertisements that were sent without prior express invitation or permission and without compliant opt-out language (to the extent the affirmative defense of "established business relationship" is alleged). The Plaintiff seeks statutory damages for each violation of the TCPA and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff is a New York professional corporation with its principal place of business within this judicial district. The Defendant is a for-profit corporation that is in the staffing and recruiting industry and provides staffing of locum tenens providers to healthcare facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 50 Main Street, Suite 1000 White Plains, NY 10606 Phone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 Email: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Phone: 847-368-1500 Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com LOS ANGELES USD: Essah Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as BEATRICE ESSAH v. GOVERNING BOARD OF THE LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; STEVEN ZIMMER; MONICA GARCIA; DR. GEORGE J. MCKENNA III; MONICA RATLIFF; DR. REF RODRIGUEZ; SCOTT M. SCHMERELSON; DR. RICHARD A. VLADOVIC; JOHN DEASY; DAVID HOLMQUIST; JUSTO A VILA; ANDRES CHAIT; FREDDY ORTIZ; MICHAEL HARRINGTON, and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC658459 (Filed April 19, 2017), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 19, 2020. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:20-cv-02628 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants over failure to accommodate disability; Bane Act violation; and declaratory and injunctive relief. Ms. Essah is acting on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated permanent certificated LAUSD employees. LAUSD is the largest (in terms of number of students) public school system in the U.S. state of California and the 2nd largest public school district in the United States.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: David V. Greco, Esq. OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 333 S. Beaudry Avenue, 20th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: 213 241 7600 Facsimile: 213 241 3308 LTF CLUB: Marsh Labor Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND MARSH, IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LTF CLUB MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Life Time Fitness, Receipt No. 0101-8162543 (Filed Feb. 18, 2020), was removed from the Massachusetts Superior Court, Middlesex County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 19, 2020. The Plaintiff worked as a personal trainer and group fitness instructor for LTF. He alleges that he was paid on both a commission and piece-rate basis, but that he did not receive separate overtime compensation for hours worked on Sunday, holidays, or in excess of 40 hours a week in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law. LTF is a Delaware limited liability company that operates a national chain of fitness centers.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Robert M. Shaw, Esq. David J. Santeusanio, Esq. Andrew E. Silvia, Esq. HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: 617-523-2700 Facsimile: 617-523-6850 E-mail: robert.shaw@hklaw.com david.santeusanio@hklaw.com andrew.silvia@hklaw.com LYFT INC: Rogers Employment Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN ROGERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LYFT, INC., Case No. CGC-20-583685 (Filed March 12, 2020), was removed from the California Superior Court, San Francisco County, to the U.S. District Court Northern District of California on March 19, 2020. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:20-cv-01938 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages based on Lyft's alleged failure to offer its drivers paid sick days as required by California law. Lyft is an American ridesharing company based in San Francisco, California, and operating in 644 cities in the United States and cities in Canada.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Rachael E. Meny, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. Eugene M. Paige, Esq. Brook Dooley, Esq. Ian Kanig, Esq. Jason George, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: 415 391 5400 Facsimile: 415 397 7188 E-mail: rmeny@keker.com rslaughter@keker.com epaige@keker.com bdooley@keker.com ikanig@keker.com jgeorge@keker.com MACY'S INC: Hartigan Suit Removed to District of Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT HARTIGAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MACY'S, INC., Case No. Case No. 2019-CV-03718-BLS1 (Filed Nov. 26, 2019), was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 19, 2020. The District of Massachusetts Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-10551-PBS to the proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated M.G.L. c. 214, section 1B, for breaching a duty of care owed to its card holders by failing to prevent the criminal acts of an unknown third party. Macy's is an American department store chain founded in 1858 by Rowland Hussey Macy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Relethford, Esq. Michael C. Forrest, Esq. Robert E. Mazow, Esq. FORREST, LAMOTHE, MAZOW MCCULLOUGH, YASI & YASI PC 2 Salem Green, Suite 2 Salem, MA 01970 E-mail: drelethford@forrestlamothe.com mforrest@forrestlamothe.com rmazow@forrestlamothe.com The Defendant is represented by: Brenda R. Sharton, Esq. David S. Kantrowitz, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: 617.570.1000 Facsimile: 617.523.1231 E-mail: bsharton@goodwinlaw.com dkantrowitz@goodwinlaw.com MAMMOTH ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit in Oklahoma Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss filed in the class action suit entitled, In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, is pending. In June 2019 and August 2019, the Company was served with three class action lawsuits filed in the Western District of Oklahoma. On September 13, 2019, the court consolidated the three lawsuits under the case caption In re Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. Securities Litigation. On November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint against Mammoth Energy Services, Inc., Arty Straehla, and Mark Layton. Pursuant to their first amended complaint, the plaintiffs brought a consolidated putative federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. common stock between October 19, 2017, and June 5, 2019, inclusive. On January 10, 2020, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. Mammoth Energy said, "The Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MAMMOTH ENERGY: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Puerto Rico ------------------------------------------------------------- Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in Puerto Rico initiated by Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. On June 19, 2018, Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico styled Wendco of Puerto Rico Inc.; Multisystem Restaurant Inc.; Restaurant Operators Inc.; Apple Caribe, Inc.; on their own behalf and in representation of all businesses that conduct business in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico vs. Mammoth Energy Services Inc.; Cobra Acquisitions, LLC; D. Grimm Puerto Rico, LLC, et al. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants caused power outages in Puerto Rico while performing restoration work on Puerto Rico's electrical network following Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017, thereby interrupting commercial activities and causing economic loss. The Company believes these claims are without merit and will vigorously defend the action. Mammoth Energy said, "However, at this time, the Company is not able to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or whether it will have a material impact on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. operates as an integrated oilfield service company. The Company operates in four segments: Pressure Pumping Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Contract Land and Directional Drilling Services. It was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. MARIN J CORP: Agricultural Workers Class Certified -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as GUSTAVO CORTEZ-ROMERO, et al. v. MARIN J CORP. and JORGE J. MARIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-14058-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon Judge Robin L. Rosenberg has entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of a class of: "all H-2A temporary agricultural workers employed by Defendants Marin J Corp and/or Jorge J. Marin during the 2018 Missouri watermelon harvest"; 2. approving a proposed notice of right to opt-in to lawsuit for distribution to the class members; 3. directing the Plaintiffs to distribute the notice to class members, both by mail (where feasible) and through other media deemed likely to reach the class members, including, but not limited to, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and WhatsApp; 4. directing Defendants, by no later than April 15, 2020, to provide to Plaintiffs' counsel the complete names and permanent addresses of all H-2A temporary agricultural workers employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri watermelon harvest; 5. directing the Defendants to file a notice with the Court informing it of the date on which this information was provided to counsel for the Plaintiffs; and 6. directing the Plaintiffs to have until June 15, 2020, to distribute the notice of the members of the putative class. Class members wishing to opt in to this action shall do so by June 30, 2020. The Court finds that it is likely that there are additional H-2A workers who were employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri watermelon harvest who desire to opt in to this action. The Court further finds that the members of the proposed class, i.e., H-2A workers employed by Defendants during the 2018 Missouri watermelon harvest, are similarly situated to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs and the class members were employed under the same employment contracts and worked in the same geographic area during a single, three-month watermelon harvest. The Court added, that the Plaintiffs and the members of the putative class were subjected to the same policies and practices by the Defendants that allegedly violated the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standrds Act. Marin is doing business in the agriculture industry.[CC] MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Johnson Class Action in Georgia -------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Company continues to defend a class action suit initiated by Jarrod Johnson. In September 2016, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the City of Gadsden, Alabama (the "Gadsden Water Board") filed an individual complaint in the Circuit Court of Etowah County, Alabama against certain manufacturers, suppliers, and users of chemicals containing specific Perfluorinated Compounds ("PFCs"), including the Company. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama (the "Centre Water Board") filed a similar complaint in the Circuit Court of Cherokee County, Alabama. The Gadsden Water Board and the Centre Water Board both seek monetary damages and injunctive relief claiming that their water supplies contain excessive amounts of PFCs. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed dispositive motions in each case arguing that the Alabama state courts lack personal jurisdiction over them. These motions were denied. In June and September 2018, certain defendants, including the Company, petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for Writs of Mandamus directing each lower court to enter an order granting the defendants' dispositive motions on personal jurisdiction grounds. The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions on December 20, 2019. Certain defendants, including the Company, filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court asking the Court to reconsider its December 2019 decision. In December 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia ("Rome") filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia that is similar to the Gadsden Water Board and Centre Water Board complaints, again seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief related to PFCs. Also in December 2019, Jarrod Johnson filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Floyd County, Georgia purporting to represent all water subscribers with the Rome (Georgia) Water and Sewer Division and/or the Floyd County (Georgia) Water Department and seeking to recover, among other things, damages in the form of alleged increased rates and surcharges incurred by ratepayers for the costs associated with eliminating certain PFCs from their drinking water. In January 2020, defendant 3M Company removed the class action to federal court. The Company denies all liability in these matters and intends to defend them vigorously. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a putative securities class action suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware. The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative state securities class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware on January 30, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock in Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 1 and Mohawk Industries Retirement Plan 2 between April 27, 2017 and July 25, 2019. The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend them vigorously. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in Georgia ---------------------------------------------------------- Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company is defending against a putative shareholder class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Company and certain of its present and former executive officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on January 3, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between April 28, 2017 and July 25, 2019. The Company believes the claims are frivolous and intends to defend them vigorously. Mohawk Industries, Inc. is a global flooring manufacturer that creates products to enhance residential and commercial spaces around the world. The company is based in Calhoun, Georgia. NATERA INC: Bid to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Denied --------------------------------------------------- Natera, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has been denied. On March 15, 2019, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the plaintiff received an unauthorized text message to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Among other relief, the complaint seeks statutory and other damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and costs. On June 18, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Natera, Inc., a diagnostics company, provides preconception and prenatal genetic testing services. The company was formerly known as Gene Security Network, Inc. and changed its name to Natera, Inc. in 2012. Natera, Inc. was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in San Carlos, California. NURSECON AT SEA: Mitchell Wants Cancelled Convention Fees Back -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NURSECON AT SEA, LLC and ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, Case No. 1:20-cv-21503-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), is brought for injunctive, declaratory, and equitable relief, and for any other available remedies resulting from the Defendants' illegal, unfair, or deceptive conduct related to retaining the costs of the cruise and convention fees paid by the Plaintiffs and the other Class members. The Defendants are attempting to use the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") pandemic as a profiteering vessel to steal money from nurses, the very people, who deserve our support now more than ever, the Plaintiff alleges. NurseCon is conning nurses out of their deposits for a cruise that is cancelled due to COVID-19. The founder of NurseCon, "Nurse Blake" an on-line personality, has captained the plot to steal the cruise fee ($2,578.00 per person) from the nurses (1500 nurses). What makes matters even worse in this nightmarish time is that "Nurse Blake" a self-proclaimed comedian thinks this is funny, the Plaintiff asserts. The class action is brought on behalf of all people, who paid the cost of the "Ultimate Nursing Conference", designed and managed by Defendant NurseCon at Sea, LLC and hosted by Royal Caribbean International. The Plaintiff contends that these people lost the benefits of the costs and the services for which they had paid, for a specific event to take place on the proposed and scheduled dates, based upon the world-wide COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants have responded to the pandemic and the resulting cancellation of its event by retaining the unearned costs and fees, implementing a policy, whereby it refuses to grant any refunds to its participants. Despite the cancellation, the Defendants have not offered refunds to the Plaintiff or other nurses for the costs associated with the cancelled convention, says the complaint. The Defendants are, in essence, profiting from this pandemic. The decision to cancel or reschedule the event was a responsible decision to make, but it is unfair and unlawful for Defendants to retain and withhold unearned fees and costs, passing the losses on to the consumers and their families. Ms. Mitchell is a nurse, who paid for an event called NurseCon at Sea 2020. NurseCon at Sea is designed by Nurse Blake "for nurses and nursing students to learn, share, interact, and party."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 4030 Henderson Boulevard Tampa, FL 33629 Phone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Awaits Decision on Appeal from Dismissal Order ---------------------------------------------------------------- Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Company is awaiting a decision on a class action appeal. On November 16, 2017, a purported securities class action complaint captioned Dror Gronich v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-08983-NRB. On November 17, 2017, a second purported securities class action complaint captioned Steve Klein v. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc., C. Taylor Pickett, Robert O. Stephenson, and Daniel J. Booth was filed against the Company and the same officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:17-cv-09024-NRB. Thereafter, the Court considered a series of applications by various shareholders to be named lead plaintiff, consolidated the two actions and designated Royce Setzer as the lead plaintiff. Pursuant to a Scheduling Order entered by the Court, lead plaintiff Setzer and additional plaintiff Earl Holtzman filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on May 25, 2018. The Securities Class Action purports to be a class action brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities between May 3, 2017 and October 31, 2017. The Securities Class Action alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by making materially false and/or misleading statements, and by failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, including the financial and operating results of one of the Company's operators, the ability of such operator to make timely rent payments, and the impairment of certain of the Company's leases and the uncollectibility of certain receivables. The Securities Class Action, which purports to assert claims for violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief. The Company and the officers named in the Securities Class Action filed a Motion to Dismiss on July 17, 2018. On March 25, 2019, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument on November 13, 2019. The Company is awaiting a decision on the appeal. Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. is a real estate investment trust (REIT). The Company invests in and provides financing to the long-term care industry. Omega operates healthcare facilities in the United States which are operated by independent healthcare operating companies. The company is based in Hunt Valley, Maryland. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Continues to Defend Costas Class Suit in Nevada ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by Mac Costas. On June 11, 2018, a putative class action was filed by Mac Costas on behalf of alleged shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's ordinary shares between August 8, 2017 and May 15, 2018 was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, which was subsequently amended by a consolidated complaint filed by lead plaintiff Phoenix Insurance in May 13, 2019. The complaint asserts claim against all defendants pursuant to Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and against its officers pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges that the Company's Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2017, and Form 10-Qs for each of the quarters in the nine months ended September 30, 2017 contained material misstatements or omissions, among other things, with respect to the Company's tax provisions and the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting, and that, as a result of such alleged misstatements and omissions, the plaintiffs suffered damages. On December 6, 2019 the Company's motion to dismiss was denied by the court. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES: Riche Class Suit in Delaware Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- Ormat Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177. Following the announcement of the Company's acquisition of U.S. Geothermal Inc. (USG), a number of putative shareholder class action complaints were initially filed on behalf of USG shareholders between March 8, 2018 and March 30, 2018 against USG and the individual members of the USG board of directors. All of the purported class action suits filed in Federal Court in Idaho have been voluntarily dismissed. The single remaining class action complaint is a purported class action filed in the Delaware Chancery Court, entitled Riche v. Pappas, et al., Case No. 2018-0177 (Del. Ch., Mar. 12, 2018). An amended complaint was filed on May 24, 2018 under seal, under a confidentiality agreement that was executed by plaintiff. The amended Riche complaint alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty against former USG directors and seeks post-closing damages. The Company believes that it has valid defenses under law and intends to defend itself vigorously. Ormat Technologies, Inc. engages in the geothermal and recovered energy power business in the United States, Indonesia, Kenya,Turkey, Chile, Guatemala, New Zealand, and internationally. The company operates through three segments: Electricity, Product, and Other. Ormat Technologies, Inc. was founded in 1965 and is based in Reno, Nevada. PETRO MECHANICAL: Roque Sues to Recover Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Roque, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PETRO MECHANICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 7:20-cv-00087-DC (W.D. Tex., April 7, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages from the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant violated the FLSA by employing the Plaintiff and other nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours but refusing to compensate them for their employment in excess of forty hours, at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are or were employed," the Plaintiff alleges. The Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for the Plaintiff as required by the FLSA, says the complaint. Plaintiff Roque was employed by the Defendants as a welder from October 2018 to March 2020. Petro Mechanical is a mechanical services company that serves the oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 PLURALSIGHT INC: Continues to Defend Class Action in Utah --------------------------------------------------------- Pluralsight, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit that is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In August 2019, a class action complaint was filed by a stockholder of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, and certain of the Company's officers alleging violation of securities laws and seeking unspecified damages. In October 2019, the action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend the case vigorously. Pluralsight said, "The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s) in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable." Pluralsight, Inc. operates as a software company. The Company provides a platform which offers assessments, learning paths and courses to businesses and individuals seeking to enhance their programming and IT related skill sets. Pluralsights servces customers around the world. The company is based in Farmington, Utah. PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC: Ohio App. Affirms CSPA Suit Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eleventh District, Geauga County issued an Opinion affirming the District Court's judgment granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned PATRICK H. HATFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PRESTON CHEVROLET-CADILLAC, INC., d.b.a. PRESTON CHEV-CAD-KIA, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 2018-G-0168. (Ohio App.) Appellant, Patrick Hatfield, appeals the judgment dismissing his complaint with prejudice against appellee, Preston Chevrolet-Cadillac, Inc. (Preston). Hatfield filed a class-action complaint against Preston alleging violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) and Ohio's Administrative Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) & (21). His complaint sets forth three claims for relief and attaches two documents, the Closed End Motor Vehicle Lease and Retail Lease Order. Hatfield generally avers that Preston routinely commits acts declared deceptive by including a lease-acquisition fee, in addition to the agreed upon value, on its pre-printed lease agreement forms. Hatfield raises one assignment of error: The trial court erred in granting Preston's motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) based on Regulation M of the Federal Truth in Lending Act because (a) Regulation M does not supersede state law, and (b) Appellee's lease acquisition fee' is prohibited under Ohio law (OAC 109:4-3-16(B)(21) and case law interpreting that law. The Appellate Court reviews the trial court's decision granting motions to dismiss de novo, without deference to the trial court's decision. Upon reviewing motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), the Appellate Court accepts all factual allegations in the complaint as true and dismiss only when it appears beyond doubt from the complaint that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. Hatfield alleges that the Ohio Adm. Code does not authorize the charging of a lease-acquisition fee and that the regular charging of such a fee constitutes a violation of OAC 109:4-3-16(B)(17) & (21). In his second claim for relief, Hatfield alleges that Preston's inclusion of the lease-acquisition fee negligently misrepresented to him and the class that the fee was proper. Hatfield's third and final claim for relief avers that Preston materially misrepresented that the inclusion of the lease-acquisition fee was proper, even though it is in violation of Ohio law, and that this misrepresentation constitutes fraud. Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) & (21) state: It shall be a deceptive and unfair act or practice for a dealer, manufacturer, advertising association, or advertising group, in connection with the advertisement or sale of a motor vehicle, to: Raise or attempt to raise the actual purchase price of any motor vehicle to a specific consumer. A plain reading of Ohio Adm. Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21) reveals that it does not preclude a dealer or seller of an automobile from charging fees other than those specified. To the contrary, a plain reading confirms that this provision is designed to ensure that the advertised price includes all costs, except those specified. Thus, one of the included costs in a car's advertised price could be a lease-acquisition fee, and accordingly, a lease-acquisition fee is not in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21) as long as that fee is encompassed in the advertised price of the vehicle. Thus, to the extent that Hatfield's complaint avers that Preston's act of charging a lease-acquisition fee is illegal or contrary to this provision, the Appellate Court disagrees. As for Hatfield's first count, based on the allegation that the lease-acquisition fee was included after the fact, Hatfield alleges that Preston raised his vehicle's lease price in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(17) by inserting this lease-acquisition fee via its pre-printed form lease agreements, or that Preston failed to include the lease-acquisition fee in the advertised price contrary to Ohio Adm.Code 109:4-3-16(B)(21). However, Hatfield only alleges that Preston's advertised price was conveyed to him and the other potential class members via the Lease Agreement, and because the agreed upon value set forth as $29,300 does not include the $595 lease-acquisition fee, Preston has raised the price and/or advertised to a price different than the one charged in violation of the foregoing Ohio Administrative Code Sections. The Appellate Court disagrees. Hatfield's argument confuses a vehicle's stated agreed upon value with the advertised price. This misunderstanding is best evidenced by his allegation in paragraph 24 of his complaint, which states in part: Typicality: Mr. Hatfield's claim is identical to the claims of other class members, being charged by Preston a fee in excess of the agreed upon value of the leased vehicle stated on a standard, pre-printed lease agreement. This is also not a case in which Hatfield claims, for example, that he was orally advised of a price other than that set forth in the Lease Agreement that did not include the lease-acquisition fee or that he saw a television commercial that advertised the lease price for an amount that did not include this fee. Hatfield's sole assignment of error lacks merit, and the trial court's decision is affirmed. A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' November 18, 2019 Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/ryvqdxk from Leagle.com. Ronald I. Frederick , and Michael L. Berler , Frederick & Berler, LLC, 767 East 185th Street, Cleveland, OH 44119 (For Plaintiff-Appellant). Robert A. Poklar , and Matthew Charles Miller , Weston Hurd, LLP, The Tower at Erieview, 1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 1900, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendant-Appellee). ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL: Faces Xia Class Suit Over Total Outage of OS ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mengni Xia, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ROBINHOOD FINANCIAL, LLC, ROBINHOOD SECURITIES, LLC, and ROBINHOOD MARKETS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-02352 (N.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), is brought for several claims, including breach of contract, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of California consumer protection laws arising from a total outage of the Defendants' operating systems. Robinhood's customers place securities trades through the firm's Web site, by using a web-based application, or by calling the firm's help center. Unfortunately for Robinhood's customers, including the Plaintiff, Robinhood's trading systems completely crashed on Monday, March 2, 2020, and experienced a total outage of its operating systems. Throughout the entire trading day, Robinhood's customers were prevented from making any securities trades through the firm's Web site, app, or call center. As a result of the Outage, the Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of Robinhood customers who were denied access to their Robinhood trading accounts during the Outage and for the many, including herself, who suffered losses in their Robinhood trading accounts specifically as a result of their inability to place any securities or options trades during the Outage. The Plaintiff is a customer of Robinhood and entered into a Customer Agreement in order to use Robinhood's online trading systems. Robinhood Financial is registered as a broker-dealer with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Mauriello, Esq. MAURIELLO LAW FIRM, APC 1230 Columbia Street, Suite 1140 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 940-1606 Facsimile: (949) 606-9690 Email: tomm@maurlaw.com - and - Joshua H. Grabar, Esq. GRABAR LAW OFFICE 1735 Market Street, Suite 3750 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 267-507-6085 Fax: 267-507-6048 Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com RUTH'S HOSPITALITY: Guerrero Class Action in Calif. Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit entitled, Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al. On February 26, 2018, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay minimum wages, pay overtime wages, permit required meal and rest breaks and provide accurate wage statements, among other claims. This lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California's Private Attorney's General Act in addition to other monetary payments (Quiroz Guerrero v. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., et al.; Case No RIC1804127). Ruth's Hospitality said, "Although the ultimate outcome of this matter, including any possible loss, cannot be predicted or reasonable estimated at this time, we intend to vigorously defend this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Ruth's Hospitality Group, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, develops, operates, and franchises fine dining restaurants. Its restaurants offer food and beverage products to special occasion diners and frequent customers, as well as business clientele. The Company operates restaurants under the Ruth's Chris Steak House trade name. The Company was founded in 1965 and is headquartered in Winter Park, Florida. S S D ENTERPRISES: Refuses to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, McMinn Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly McMinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. S S D ENTERPRISES, INC., D/B/A THE RITZ HOUSTON, SC SAXENIAN, MIKE DOE, LAUREN DOE, RICK DOE AND LYNN DOE individuals, Case No. 4:20-cv-01243 (S.D. Tex., April 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages resulting from their evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and illegally absconding with the Plaintiff's tips. The Plaintiff has been denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of the Defendants' scheme to classify the Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors," says the complaint. The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime wages for all hours worked in violation of the FLSA. The Defendants' conduct violates the FLSA, which requires non-exempt employees to be compensated for their overtime work at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay. Furthermore, the Defendants' practice of failing to pay tipped employees, violates the FLSA's minimum wage provision. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in October 2017 through January 2018. The Defendants own and operate a strip club named THE RITZ.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. Leigh Montgomery, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77066 Phone: (713) 554-2377 Fax: (888) 995-3335 Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFFS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in Zayas Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit styled as CANDIDO ZAYAS, et al., v. SAN FRANCISCO SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-06155-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph C. Spero entered an order denying a class certification motion without prejudice to addressing the propriety of certifying a settlement class in the motion for preliminary approval. The Court said, "The motion for preliminary approval shall be filed by April 24, 2020. The Court will notify the parties if it determines that oral 20 argument is necessary. To the extent applicable, the Motion for Preliminary Approval should conform to the requirements set forth in the Class Action Settlement Guidance found on the website for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the "Attorneys" tab." The San Francisco Sheriff's Office, officially the City and County of San Francisco Sheriff's Office, is the sheriff's office for the City and County of San Francisco.[CC] SEVERO OZUNA: Settlement in Camilo Suit Wins Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as RODRIGO CAMILO, et al. v. SEVERO C. OZUNA, et al., Case No. 5:18-cv-02842-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia K. Demarchi entered an order: 1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the settlement; 2. granting in part the motion for attorneys' fees, costs and service awards. Specifically, the Court awards $93,750 in attorneys' fees, $7,776.63 in litigation costs; $15,000 to the claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc.; and $5,000 each to Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose Lopez as service awards.; 3. directing the Parties to file a stipulation for dismissal promptly upon fulfillment of the terms of the approved settlement. The Court said, "Each named plaintiff seeks a service award of $5,000. Courts in this district have recognized that a $5,000 service award is "presumptively reasonable." Here, each plaintiff avers that he is the sole provider for his family. While their declarations are vague as to exactly how much time they spent on this case, it appears that each plaintiff may have lost up to several days of work to meet with class counsel and to attend the mediation. Additionally, at least two plaintiffs state that they incurred significant travel costs, namely Mr. Lopez (who says he has lived in Sacramento since 2015) and Mr. Sanchez who says he was required to make at least one 70-mile round trip. The Court grants the requested service awards of $5,000 for each plaintiff." The Plaintiffs Rodrigo Camilo, Alvaro Camilo, Ricardo Sanchez, and Jose Lopez filed this hybrid class action and collective action for alleged wage and hour violations under the California Labor Code and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants "shaved" work hours from their paychecks on a regular basis, with the result that the plaintiffs were not paid minimum wages and were not compensated for all the overtime hours they worked. The Defendants are Severo C. Ozuna and the Don Vito Ozuna Food Corporation.[CC] SHASTA BEVERAGES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in Garcia ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit styled as Amber Garcia et al. v. Shasta Beverages Inc. et al., Case No. CV 19-7798 PA (AFMx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: "all persons who are or were employed (whether directly or through a temp agency) by Corporate Defendants in the state of California as non-exempt employees who occupied hourly non-exempt positions including, but not limited to, Production Workers and Shipping Clerks, within four years prior to the date this lawsuit is filed until resolution of this lawsuit." Judge Anderson said, "The Court finds that the Plaintiff has failed to present good cause in support of an extension. Additional evidence of potential labor violations will not alleviate the predominance issue presented by this proposed class. For example, even if the Plaintiff could produce a dozen more declarations alleging missed meal periods and breaks, the Court would still have to make individualized inquiries in light of the reality that some employees chose to skip their meal/break, while others were pressured to miss their meal/break. Ultimately, the proposed class is too unwieldy because Shasta's employees appear to have wholly different work experiences based on their particular facility, department, and supervisor. Plus, class members' experiences differ based on whether or not they are covered by a collective bargaining agreement. For these reasons, the Court finds that an extension of time will not resolve the predominance issue in this action. The Court therefore denies the Plaintiff's request for extension of time." The Plaintiff was previously employed as a production worker at Shasta's La Mirada facility. On July 26, 2019, she filed a wage and hour class action complaint against Shasta. Shasta Beverages is an American soft drink manufacturer which markets a value priced soft drink line with a wide variety of soda flavors under the brand name Shasta.[CC] SWITCH INC: Discovery Ongoing in Cai Putative Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Switch, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the parties in the putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al., are engaged in discovery. Four substantially similar putative class action complaints, captioned Martz v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 20, 2018); Palkon v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed April 30, 2018); Chun v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed May 11, 2018); and Silverberg v. Switch, Inc. et al. (filed June 6, 2018), were filed in the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada, and subsequently consolidated into a single case (the "State Court Securities Action"). Additionally, on June 11, 2018, one putative class action complaint captioned Cai v. Switch, Inc. et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Federal Court Securities Action," and collectively with the State Court Securities Action, the "Securities Actions") and subsequently transferred to the Eighth Judicial District of Nevada in August 2018 and the federal court appointed Oscar Farach lead plaintiff. These lawsuits were filed against Switch, Inc., certain current and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of Switch, Inc.'s initial public offering (IPO) alleging federal securities law violations in connection with the IPO. These lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of Switch, Inc. seeking to represent a class of stockholders who purchased Class A common stock in or traceable to the IPO, and seek unspecified damages and other relief. In October 2018, the state court granted the defendants' motion to stay the State Court Securities Action in favor of the Federal Court Securities Action, which stay was affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court in September 2019. In October 2018, the lead plaintiff of the Federal Court Securities Action filed an amended complaint. In November 2018, Switch, Inc. and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to strike. In July 2019, the federal court granted Switch, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in part, which narrowed the scope of the plaintiff’s case. In December 2019, Switch, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and the parties are waiting for the federal court to rule on the motion. The parties are currently engaged in discovery in the Federal Court Securities Action. Switch, Inc. believes that these lawsuits are without merit and intends to continue to vigorously defend against them. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Switch, Inc., through its subsidiary, Switch, Ltd., provides colocation space and related services primarily to technology and digital media companies in the United States. It develops and operates data centers in Nevada and Michigan. Switch, Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. SYNERGIES3 TEC: Overland Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- Talon Overland, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Synergies3 TEC Services, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-00447-FB (W.D. Tex., April 9, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant misclassified the Plaintiff and other installation technicians as "independent contractors" and failed to pay them 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an installation technician from September 2018 to October 2019. Synergies3 is a satellite installation provider for AT&T (DirecTV). Synergies3 provides satellite installation services to AT&T customers across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Jay Eidsness, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 S 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 215-6870 Email: srey@nka.com jeidness@nka.com TANDEM DIABETES: Faces Deluna Suit Over Jan. 2020 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Deluna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TANDEM DIABETES CARE, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00727 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), is brought for actual and statutory damages, as well as punitive damages for negligence, and violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act. Between January 17, 2020, and January 20, 2020, Tandem was the subject of a data breach due to its negligent failure to properly safeguard the information of its customers, according to the complaint. The data breach exposed "customer names, contact information, information related to those customers' use of Tandem's products or services, clinical data regarding their diabetes therapy, and in a few limited instances, Social Security numbers" (collectively, the "PII"). Despite experiencing this data breach in January 2020, Tandem waited two months to announce the data breach to consumers in March 2020. Plaintiff Joseph Deluna is a citizen of California, who is a customer of Tandem. Tandem is a medical device manufacturer that specializes in the treatment of diabetes and insulin infusion therapy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com TEGNA INC: Bid to Dismiss Clay Massey Suit over Ad Rates Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tegna Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the defendants' motion to dismiss in the class action suit entitled, Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et al., is still pending. In the third quarter of 2018, certain national media outlets reported the existence of a confidential investigation by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) into the local television advertising sales practices of station owners. The company received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) in connection with the DOJ's investigation. The investigation is ongoing. On November 13 and December 13, 2018, DOJ and seven broadcasters settled a DOJ complaint alleging the exchange of competitively sensitive information in the broadcast television industry. In June 2019, the company and four other broadcasters entered into a substantially identical agreement with DOJ, which was entered by the court on December 3, 2019. The settlement contains no finding of wrongdoing or liability and carries no penalty. It prohibits the company and the other settling entities from sharing certain confidential business information, or using such information pertaining to other broadcasters, except under limited circumstances. The settlement also requires the settling parties to make certain enhancements to their antitrust compliance programs; to continue to cooperate with the DOJ's investigation and to permit DOJ to verify compliance. The company does not expect the costs of compliance to be material. Since the national media reports, numerous putative class action lawsuits were filed against owners of television stations (the Advertising Cases) in different jurisdictions. Plaintiffs are a class consisting of all persons and entities in the United States who paid for all or a portion of advertisement time on local television provided by the defendants. The Advertising Cases assert antitrust and other claims and seek monetary damages, attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as injunctions against the allegedly wrongful conduct. These cases have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Clay, Massey & Associates, P.C. v. Gray Television, Inc. et. al., filed on July 30, 2018. At the court's direction, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 3, 2019, that superseded the original complaints. Although we were named as a defendant in sixteen of the original complaints, the amended complaint did not name TEGNA as a defendant. After TEGNA and four other broadcasters entered into consent decrees with the Department of Justice in June 2019, the plaintiffs sought leave from the court to further amend the complaint to add TEGNA and the other settling broadcasters to the proceeding. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint on September 9, 2019. On October 8, 2019, the defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the matter. Tegna said, "We deny any violation of law, believe that the claims asserted in the Advertising Cases are without merit, and intend to defend ourselves vigorously against them." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Tegna Inc., incorporated on February 23, 1972, is a media company. The Company provides stories, investigations and marketing services. It operates 47 television stations in 39 United States markets and owns four network affiliates. It also provides services to advertisers through solutions, including its over the top (OTT) local advertising network, Premion. The company is based in Tysons, Virginia. THOMAS MAINTENANCE: Thevenin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Thevenin, Ronald Rivers, Cortavis Anderson, for themselves and on behalf of all of those similarly situated v. THOMAS MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation; and MILES THOMAS, individually, Case No. 1:20-cv-21505-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 over unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours within one or more workweeks. In one or more work weeks during their employment, the Defendants failed to compensate the Plaintiffs, at rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as non-exempt landscapers. THOMAS MAINTENANCE SERVICES, INC. was, and continues to be, a Florida profit corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Natalie Staroschak, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954-807-7759 Fax: 954-807-7781 Email: nstaroschak@forthepeople.com TILRAY INC: Faces Braun Class Action in Delaware ------------------------------------------------ Tilray, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137. On February 27, 2020, stockholders Braun and Noorian filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery styled Braun v. Kennedy, C.A. No. 2020-0137. The suit named Brendan Kennedy, Christian Groh, Michael Blue, Maryscott Greenwood, Michael Auerbach, and Privateer Evolution, LLC (as successor to Privateer Holdings, Inc.) as defendants and Tilray as a nominal defendant. The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Kennedy, Groh, Blue, and Privateer Evolution, LLC for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in their capacity as Tilray's controlling stockholders and against Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in their capacities as directors and/or officers of Tilray in connection with the Downstream Merger. The complaint alleges that the Privateer Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing Tilray to enter into the Downstream Merger and Tilray's Board to approve that Downstream Merger, and that Defendants Kennedy, Greenwood, and Auerbach breached their fiduciary duties as directors by approving the Downstream Merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Downstream Merger gave the Privateer Defendants hundreds of millions of dollars of tax savings in which Tilray did not share equally and that it unfairly transferred and extended Kennedy, Blue, and Groh’s control over Tilray. Tilray said, "We believe we have meritorious defenses to these matters and will continue to vigorously defend against them, but there are no assurances as to their outcome at this time. An adverse judgment or award against the Company in these cases could result in an event of default under the terms of the Senior Facility or the convertible notes." Tilray, Inc. engages in the research, cultivation, production, and distribution of medical cannabis and cannabinoids. The Company is focused on medical cannabis research, cultivation, processing and distribution of cannabis products worldwide. The company is based in Nanaimo, British Columbia. TLG FAMILY MANAGEMENT: Ruffolo Sues Over Unlawful Time Shaving -------------------------------------------------------------- Aracelis Ruffolo and Dominique Bonseigneur, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. TLG Family Management, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-02188 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2020), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law regarding its time shaving practice. According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy of deducting 30 minutes from the hourly employees' time for a lunch. Often, the hourly employees were not allowed to take a lunch because they were busy tending to patients or otherwise working. The Defendant would adjust the clock-in and clock-out times for the purpose of paying the hourly employees less. In other words, the Defendant would "shave" time off of the hours to pay the Plaintiffs less money. As a result of the lunch and other time deductions, the Plaintiffs were working in excess of 40 hours in a single work week and not being paid for that time and were not paid one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Illinois, who were employed by TLG. TLG Family Management, LLC is a Texas limited liability company which manages The LaSalle Group, Inc., which in turns owns several assisted living facilities throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Fish, Esq. Kimberly Hilton, Esq. John Kunze, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 East Fifth Avenue, Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 TOUGH MUDDER: McKinnon Employment Suit Removed to S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA MCKINNON, CLAIRE LARBEY, DANIEL PARKE, IRENE CARIAS, JAKE RABOY, JAMES MCGUINNES, NICOLA PORTER-SMITH, and JOHN LITTLE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TOUGH MUDDER INCORPORATED and TOUGH MUDDER EVENT PRODUCTION INCORPORATED, Case No. 655092/2020 (Filed Feb. 13, 2020), was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March 19, 2020. The Southern District of New York Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-cv-00390-UNA to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, New York Labor Law, arising from the termination of their employment on February 3, 2020. Tough Mudder is a lifestyle, events and media company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donna L. Culver, Esq. Joseph C. Barsalona II, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 Telephone: (302) 658-9200 TWILIO INC: Compliance Hearing in Flowers Case Set for May 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a compliance hearing has been scheduled for May 19, 2020, in the Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. class action suit. On February 18, 2016, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Alameda County Superior Court in California, entitled Angela Flowers v. Twilio Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company's products permit the interception, recording and disclosure of communications at a customer's request and are in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The complaint seeks injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. On January 2, 2018, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's class certification motion. The court certified two classes of individuals who, during specified time periods, allegedly sent or received certain communications involving the accounts of three of the Company's customers that were recorded. Following mediation, on January 7, 2019, the parties signed a long form settlement agreement, providing for a payment of $10.0 million into a common fund and injunctive relief involving certain updates to Twilio's Acceptable Use Policy and customer documentation. On January 15, 2019, the court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement, and the parties signed an amended settlement agreement to conform to the court's order. The court entered a final order and judgment approving the settlement on June 17, 2019. On August 30, 2019, Twilio made a payment of $1.7 million to fund the settlement. A compliance hearing has been scheduled for May 19, 2020. Any additional loss related to this matter is neither probable nor reasonably possible. Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. TWILIO INC: Settlement in Bauman Litigation Pending --------------------------------------------------- Twilio Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiffs in the case, Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al., have filed an unopposed motion for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss the Company from the action without prejudice. On September 1, 2015, Twilio was named as a defendant in a First Amended Complaint in a putative class action captioned Jeremy Bauman v. David Saxe, et al. pending in the United States District Court, District of Nevada relating to the alleged sending of unsolicited text messages to the plaintiffs and putative class members. The Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted, and on September 20, 2016 the plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint with additional allegations that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("NDTPA"), NRS 41.600(2)(e). On January 10, 2019, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under the TCPA and denied plaintiff’s request to certify a class under the NDTPA. On February 13, 2019, the court issued an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss as to Plaintiffs' TCPA claim and granting dismissal as to Plaintiffs' NDTPA claim. On February 22, 2019, the court stayed the case and directed all parties to mediation, which was conducted on May 15, 2019. On May 17, 2019, the original defendants (the "Saxe Defendants") and Twilio entered an agreement, which among other things, obligates the Saxe Defendants to fully fund all monetary and non-monetary aspects of the settlement of the matter and to obtain the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ and the class’s claims against the Company with prejudice. On October 7, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for settlement and an unopposed motion to dismiss Twilio from the action without prejudice. Twilio said, "Based on, among other things, the dismissal motion and our agreement with the Saxe Defendants, the Company does not believe a loss is reasonably possible or estimable." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Twilio Inc. provides a cloud communications platform that enables developers to build, scale, and operate communications within software applications in the United States and internationally. The company's programmable communications cloud provides a set of application programming interfaces that enable developers to embed voice, messaging, and video capabilities into their applications. Twilio Inc. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action in Australia Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Uber Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in Austrailia. In May 2019, an Australian law firm filed a class action in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, against the company and certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf of certain participants in the taxi and hire-car industry. The plaintiff alleges that the Uber entities conspired to injure the group members during the period 2014 to 2017 by either directly breaching transport legislation or commissioning offenses against transport legislation by UberX Rides Drivers in Australia. Uber said, "We deny these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Uber Technologies, Inc. develops and supports proprietary technology applications that enable independent providers of ridesharing, and meal preparation and delivery services to transact with riders and eaters worldwide. The company operates in two segments, Core Platform and Other Bets. The company was formerly known as Ubercab, Inc. and changed its name to Uber Technologies, Inc. in February 2011. Uber Technologies, Inc. was founded in 2009 and is headquartered in San Francisco, California. UNITED AIRLINES: Faces Utley Suit Alleging Breach of Contract ------------------------------------------------------------- Pamela M. Utley, Andrea Utley and Alexandra C. Schrockv, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. UNITED AIRLINES HOLDINGS, INC. AND UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00756-SO (N.D. Ohio, April 7, 2020), is brought for breach of contract and monetary relief for damages exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of all interest, costs, and attorney's fees. On January 6, 2020, Plaintiffs Utley, AU and Schrock purchased airline tickets from United under Confirmation Number EMR4TP. The Plaintiffs were scheduled to depart Cleveland, Ohio, on Sunday May 3, 2020, and arrive in Paris, France, on May 4, 2020. In between, the Plaintiffs had scheduled layover stops in Toronto, Canada. The Plaintiffs were scheduled to return on May 16, 2020, departing from Dublin, Ireland, and arriving in Cleveland, Ohio. United has cancelled and/or effectively cancelled and/or caused the Plaintiffs to incur such significant delays regarding their contracted flights that United must provide them with full and immediate refunds for the unused portion(s) of their respective flight tickets, but United refuses to offer and/or provide said full and immediate refunds, the Plaintiffs aver. The Plaintiffs assert that they have fully complied with their obligations under the Contract of Carriage, but the various national and state guidelines, laws, rules and regulations, etc., have made it impossible for them to use their airline tickets to travel to their intended destinations. Moreover, United has engaged in an intentional scheme to confuse customers related to its refund policy, which so far has not resulted in the required immediate refunds, the Plaintiffs allege. However, on March 7, 2020, the same day the WHO reported in excess of 100,000 COVID-19 cases in 94 countries, United altered its policy to require a flight time change of at least 25 hours to receive a refund. Thereafter, on March 10, 2020, United instituted a policy offering refunds only if "departure or arrival time significantly changes." Next, on March 14, 2020, United instituted its current policy of providing credits--not refunds--until one year passes from the original date of purchase, at which time a refund "may" be issued. United is refusing and/or failing to provide required full and immediate refunds to Plaintiffs and Class Members and required under the Contract of Carriage, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs purchased airfare directly from United for travel within the United State of America and internationally, including airfare for travel between Ohio and Paris, France. United is one of the largest commercial airlines in the world and conducts air passenger services throughout the United States of America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Connick, Esq. CONNICK LAW, LLC 25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: 216-364-0512 Facsimile: 216-609-3446 Email: tconnick@connicklawllc.com UNIVERSAL GROUP: Gonzalez Sues Over Unpaid OT for Electricians -------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN M. GONZALEZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff(s), v. UNIVERSAL GROUP 1, INC., MARTIN F. PEREZ, and LEON AZICRI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:20-cv-21379-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2020) is a class action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, who was was hired as an electrician, worked in excess of 66 hours every week, but the Defendants paid him for only 48 hours at his regular rate. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff for the remaining 18 overtime hours. Universal Group 1, Inc. is a commercial and residential general contractor, performing construction work in Dade County, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com US ECOLOGY: Sullivan to Proceed Solely with PAGA Claims ------------------------------------------------------- US Ecology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that Kevin Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with The Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) claim. In January 2019, Kevin Sullivan, a driver for NRC Group Holdings Corp. (NRC) from May 1, 2018 to August 22, 2018 filed a class action complaint against NRC in California Superior Court (Kevin Sullivan et. Al. v. National Response Corp., NRC Environmental Services, Inc. and Paul Taveira et al.) alleging the failure by the defendants to provide meal and rest breaks required by California law and requiring employees to work off the clock. Mr. Sullivan's complaint also asserted a claim under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), which permits an employee to assert a claim for violations of certain California Labor Code provisions on behalf of all aggrieved employees to recover statutory penalties that could be recovered by the State of California. On April 17, 2019, NRC filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, strike Mr. Sullivan's class action claims and stay the PAGA claim pending the outcome of Mr. Sullivan's individual claim; the Court subsequently granted NRC's motion to compel. In response, Mr. Sullivan amended his complaint to dismiss the class claims without prejudice and proceed solely with the PAGA claim. Unlike class claims, PAGA claims cannot be waived by an employee's agreement to individual arbitration; therefore, the case is proceeding as a pure representative PAGA claim only, absent any individual or class claims against the Company or NRC. US Ecology said, "While the Company believes that Mr. Sullivan's claims lack merit, the Company is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses associated with this proceeding." US Ecology, Inc. is a leading provider of environmental services to commercial and governmental entities. The Company addresses the complex waste management and response needs of its customers, offering treatment, disposal and recycling of hazardous, non-hazardous and radioactive waste, leading emergency response and standby services, and a wide range of complementary field and industrial services. The company is based in Boise, Idaho. VECTOR GROUP: Young Personal Injury Class Lawsuit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd.said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the purported personal injury class action entitled, Young v. American Tobacco Co., remains stayed. In November 1997, in Young v. American Tobacco Co., a purported personal injury class action was commenced on behalf of plaintiff and all similarly situated residents in Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allege they were exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes that were manufactured by the defendants, including Liggett, and suffered injury as a result of that exposure. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. No class certification hearing has been held. The stay order entered on March 16, 2016 stays the case pending completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Vector Group Ltd. is a holding company with subsidiaries engaged in domestic cigarettes manufacturing, real estate development and brokerage. WALMART INC: Faces Sousa Labor Suit Over Improperly Paid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- George Sousa, on behalf of himself and the Class members v. WALMART INC. and WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 1:20-at-00248 (E.D. Cal., April 7, 2020), is brought to recover all unpaid wages, compensation, penalties, and other damages, and to seek remedy from the sweeping practices the Defendants have integrated into their time tracking, payroll, and security policies across their stores throughout California that have deprived the Plaintiff of his lawfully-earned wages. The Plaintiff contends that he has been denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime; has been forced to wait in security-check lines while off-the-clock; and has been denied statutorily-required rest periods. This case implicates the Defendants' longstanding policies and practices, which fails to properly compensate non-exempt employees for rest periods and for work performed while "off-the-clock." The Defendant's conduct violates California law by knowingly and willfully requiring the Plaintiff to perform work and/or remain on duty for the benefit of the Defendants while off-the-clock, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed as a non-exempt employee by the Defendants at the Wal-Mart store in Hanford, California. The Defendants operate retail stores throughout the state doing business as Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters, and Sam's Club.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq. David C. Leimbach, Esq. Ryan M. Hecht, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Phone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 Email: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com dleimbach@schneiderwallace.com rhecht@schneiderwallace.com - and - William M. Hogg, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP 3700 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 960 Houston, TX 77098 Phone: (713) 338-2560 Fax: (415) 421-7105 Email: whogg@schneiderwallace.com WYNNE TRANSPORTATION: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Smith Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Darrell Smith, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. WYNNE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00818-D (N.D. Tex., April 7, 2020), accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the federal Portal-to-Portal Pay Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff time and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 during each seven day workweek. The Plaintiff was not paid time and one-half their respective regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in each seven day workweek, was paid at least $7.25 per hour based on all remuneration received in a workweek relative to the corresponding hours worked during each such workweek, and/or have/had some or all of their tips retained, taken, and/or or kept by the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a driver for the Defendant. The Defendant provides ground transportation service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. NILGES DRAHER VAUGHT PLLC 1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 251-4157 Facsimile: (214) 261-5159 Email: avaught@txlaborlaw.com ZOGENIX INC: Final Judgment of Dismissal Filed in Lake Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zogenix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that a final judgment in favor of the company and its executive officers was filed in the class action suit entitled, Lake v. Zogenix, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975-RS. On April 12, 2019, a plaintiff stockholder filed a class action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned Lake v. Zogenix, Case No. 3:19-cv-01975-RS. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of investors who purchased our stock between February 6, 2019 and April 8, 2019, and alleges that certain statements made during this period regarding the prospects for our NDA for Fintepla were false or misleading. On October 4, 2019, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the action. On January 27, 2020, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice. Rather than amend the complaint, the plaintiffs opted to voluntarily dismiss their claims. A final judgment in favor of Zogenix and its executive officers was filed on February 13, 2020. Zogenix, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, develops and commercializes therapies for the treatment of transformative central nervous system disorders in the United States. The company was formerly known as SJ2 Therapeutics, Inc. and changed its name to Zogenix, Inc. in August 2006. Zogenix, Inc. was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in Emeryville, California. ZOOM VIDEO: Johnston Sues Over Sharing of Users' Personal Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa T. Johnston, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-02376 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for, among other things, negligence, breach of implied contract, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff seeks equitable relief against the Defendant and damages sustained by the Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of the Defendant's: unlawful sharing of users' personal information with third parties, including Facebook, Inc., without adequate notice to or authorization from users; failure to safeguard its users' confidential, sensitive personal information; failure to provide adequate security, as promised, to avoid breach and infiltration (e.g., "Zoombombing") of users' videoconferences; and unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices relating to Zoom's data security. The Defendant also fails to implement proper security measures to protect users' privacy and secure their videoconferences, according to the complaint. As a result, "Zoombombing" by uninvited participants has become frequent. Contrary to the Defendant's promises, Zoom's videoconferences are not end-to-end (also known as "E2E") encrypted--which means that in addition to the participating users, the Defendant has the technical ability to spy on the videoconferences and, when compelled by the government or others, to reveal the contents of the videoconferences without the users' consent. Ms. Johnston has registered an account with Zoom using an Apple laptop computer. Zoom provides video-communication services using a cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, collaboration, chat, and webinars.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 Email: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com - and - Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Tyson Redenbarger, Esq. Anya N. Thepot, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com tredenbarger@cpmlegal.com athepot@cpmlegal.com Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ampco-Pittsburgh Has $208MM Liability Reserve -------------------------------------------------------------- Ampco-Pittsburgh Corporation has US$207,633,000 reserve at December 31, 2019, for the total costs, including defense costs, for Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "In 2006, the Corporation retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the valuation of asbestos liabilities, to assist the Corporation in estimating the potential liability for pending and unasserted future claims for the Asbestos Liability. Based on this analysis, the Corporation recorded a reserve for the Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2013 as of December 31, 2006. HR&A's analysis has been periodically updated since that time. In 2018, the Corporation engaged Nathan Associates Inc. ("Nathan") to update the liability valuation, and additional reserves were established by the Corporation as of December 31, 2018, for the Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052. "Nathan estimated in 2018 the number of future claims for the Asbestos Liability that would be filed through the year 2052, as well as the settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future unasserted claims through 2052. This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Corporation also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for the Asbestos Liability. In developing the estimate, the Corporation considered Nathan's projection for settlement or indemnity costs for the Asbestos Liability and management's projection of associated defense costs (based on the current defense to indemnity cost ratio), as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors included the Settlement Agreements in effect, policy exclusions, policy limits, policy provisions regarding coverage for defense costs, attachment points, prior impairment of policies and gaps in the coverage, policy exhaustions, insolvencies among certain of the insurance carriers, and the nature of the underlying claims for the Asbestos Liability asserted against the subsidiaries and the Corporation as reflected in the Corporation's asbestos claims database, as well as estimated erosion of insurance limits on account of claims against Howden arising out of the Products. In addition to consulting with the Corporation's outside legal counsel on these insurance matters, the Corporation consulted with a nationally recognized insurance consulting firm it retained to assist the Corporation with certain policy allocation matters that also are among the several factors considered by the Corporation when analyzing potential recoveries from relevant historical insurance for the Asbestos Liability. Based upon all of the factors considered by the Corporation, and taking into account the Corporation's analysis of publicly available information regarding the credit-worthiness of various insurers, the Corporation estimated the probable insurance recoveries for the Asbestos Liability and defense costs through 2052. "The Corporation's reserve at December 31, 2018, for the total costs, including defense costs, for the Asbestos Liability claims pending or projected to be asserted through 2052, was US$227,922,000. Defense costs are estimated at 80% of settlement costs. The reserve at December 31, 2019, was US$207,633,000. "The Corporation's receivable at December 31, 2018, for insurance recoveries attributable to the claims for which the Corporation's Asbestos Liability reserve has been established, including the portion of incurred defense costs covered by the Settlement Agreements in effect through December 31, 2018, and the probable payments and reimbursements relating to the estimated indemnity and defense costs for pending and unasserted future Asbestos Liability claims, was US$152,508,000 (US$136,932,000 at December 31, 2019)." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/NJtPOH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Had 124 Pending Talc Suits at December 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- There were 124 individual cases pending against Avon Products, Inc., as of December 31, 2019, related to allegations that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. Avon Products states, "The Company has been named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the Company sold in the past were contaminated with asbestos. Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including manufacturers of cosmetics and manufacturers of other products that, unlike the Company's products, were designed to contain asbestos. As of December 31, 2019, there were 124 individual cases pending against the Company. During the three months ended December 31, 2019, 21 new cases were filed and three cases were dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved. The value of our settlements in this area thus far has not been material, either individually or in the aggregate. Additional similar cases arising out of the use of the Company's talc products are reasonably anticipated. "We believe that the claims asserted against us in these cases are without merit. We are defending vigorously against these claims and will continue to do so. To date, the Company has not proceeded to trial in any case filed against it and there have been no findings of liability enforceable against the Company. However, nationwide trial results in similar cases filed against other manufacturers of cosmetic talc products have ranged from outright dismissals to very large jury awards of both compensatory and punitive damages. Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot predict the outcome of all individual cases pending against the Company, and we are only able to make a reasonable estimate for a small number of individual cases that have advanced to the later stages of legal proceedings. For the remaining cases, we provide an estimate of exposure on an aggregated and ongoing basis, which takes into account the historical outcomes of all cases we have resolved to date. Any accruals currently recorded on the Company's balance sheet with respect to these cases are not material. Other than these accruals, we are at this time unable to estimate our reasonably possible or probable losses. However, any adverse outcomes, either in an individual case or in the aggregate, could be material. Future costs to litigate these cases, which we expense as incurred, are not known but may be significant, though some costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/GkLOIL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Lift Stay Filed in D/C Bankruptcy Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that on January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776, seeking a Court order to, among other things, modify the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement solely from any available insurance coverage. The Company states, "On February 15, 2005, D/C was served with a lawsuit entitled American & Foreign Insurance Company v. D/C Distribution and Amfac Corporation, Case No. 04433669 filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, Central Justice Center. No other purported party was served. In the eight-count complaint for declaratory relief, reimbursement and recoupment of unspecified amounts, costs and for such other relief as the court might grant, plaintiff alleged that it is an insurance company to whom D/C tendered for defense and indemnity various personal injury lawsuits allegedly based on exposure to asbestos containing products. Plaintiff alleged that because none of the parties have been able to produce a copy of the policy or policies in question, a judicial determination of the material terms of the missing policy or policies is needed. Plaintiff sought, among other things, a declaration: of the material terms, rights, and obligations of the parties under the terms of the policy or policies; that the policies were exhausted; that plaintiff is not obligated to reimburse D/C for its attorneys' fees in that the amounts of attorneys' fees incurred by D/C have been incurred unreasonably; that plaintiff was entitled to recoupment and reimbursement of some or all of the amounts it has paid for defense and/or indemnity; and that D/C breached its obligation of cooperation with plaintiff. D/C filed an answer and an amended cross-claim. D/C believed that it had meritorious defenses and positions, and intended to vigorously defend. In addition, D/C believed that it was entitled to amounts from plaintiffs for reimbursement and recoupment of amounts expended by D/C on the lawsuits previously tendered. In order to fund such action and its other ongoing obligations while such lawsuit continued, D/C entered into a Loan Agreement and Security Agreement with Kaanapali Land, in August 2006, whereby Kaanapali Land provided certain advances against a promissory note delivered by D/C in return for a security interest in any D/C insurance policy at issue in this lawsuit. "In June 2007, the parties settled this lawsuit with payment by plaintiffs in the amount of US$1,618,000. Such settlement amount was paid to Kaanapali Land in partial satisfaction of the secured indebtedness. "Because D/C was substantially without assets and was unable to obtain additional sources of capital to satisfy its liabilities, D/C filed with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Illinois, its voluntary petition for liquidation under Chapter 7 of Title 11, United States Bankruptcy Code during July 2007, Case No. 07-12776. Such filing is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company as D/C was substantially without assets at the time of the filing. Kaanapali Land filed claims in the D/C bankruptcy that aggregated approximately US$26,800,000, relating to both secured and unsecured intercompany debts owed by D/C to Kaanapali Land. In addition, a personal injury law firm based in San Francisco that represents clients with asbestos-related claims, filed proofs of claim on behalf of approximately two thousand claimants. While it is not likely that a significant number of these claimants have a claim against D/C that could withstand a vigorous defense, it is unknown how the trustee will deal with these claims. It is not expected, however, that the Company will receive any material additional amounts in the liquidation of D/C. "On January 21, 2020, certain asbestos claimants filed a Stay Relief Motion in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, Case No. 07-12776 ("motion to lift stay"). The motion seeks the entry of an order, among other things, modifying the automatic stay in the D/C bankruptcy to permit those claimants to prosecute various lawsuits in state courts against D/C Distribution, LLC, and to recover on any judgment or settlement solely from any available insurance coverage. Various oppositions to the motion to lift stay have been filed, and the matter is set for hearing for sometime in April 2020 or such other time as is set by the court. It is not clear that the court will grant such a motion or the terms and conditions of such a motion, including limiting recovery to insurance, if such insurance exists. "The parties in the D/C and in the prior pending Oahu Sugar bankruptcy have reached out to each other to determine if there is any interest in pursuing a global settlement of the claims in the prior Oahu Sugar bankruptcy and the D/C bankruptcy insofar as the Fireman's Fund insurance policies are concerned. Such discussions are currently taking place. There are no assurances that a settlement of all claims and controversies relating to Waipio can be reached." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/JcidYt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carrier Global Records $255MM Liability at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carrier Global Corporation has recorded US$255 million for estimated total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059, according to the Company's Form S-1 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020. The amount is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on the Combined Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019. The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, we and our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was integrated into certain of our historical products or business premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer incorporate it in any of our products, certain of our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers, contained components 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 in any year. "The estimated range of total liabilities to resolve all pending and unasserted potential future asbestos claims through 2059 is approximately US$255 million to US$290 million. Where no amount within a range of estimates is more likely, the minimum is accrued. We have recorded the minimum amount of US$255 million, which is principally recorded in Other long-term liabilities on the Combined Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019. This amount is on a pre-tax basis, not discounted, and excludes our legal fees to defend the asbestos claims, which will continue to be expensed as they are incurred. This estimate was developed by UTC with the assistance of an outside actuarial expert and was based not only on UTC's analysis of its own asbestos claims history from 2010 through 2015 and its contractual insurance coverage litigations, but also on broader nationwide asbestos trend data, including a substantial drop in non-malignant asbestos claims; an increasing focus on malignancy claims, primarily those involving mesothelioma, a cancer that now has an historical and fairly predictable future annual incidence rate; and a substantial decrease in average annual claim filings. In addition, we have an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$104 million, which is included primarily in Other assets on our Combined Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2019. "The amounts we have recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable. Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. Key variables in these assumptions include the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the outcomes or resolution of such claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements and the solvency risk with respect to co-defendants and our insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of state or federal legislation. At the end of each year, we will evaluate all of these factors and, with input from an outside actuarial expert, make any necessary adjustments to both our estimated asbestos liabilities and insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form S-q is available at https://is.gd/YLWYYO ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBL & Associates Had $3.0MM Liability at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBL & Associates Properties, Inc. recorded a liability of US$3.0 million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at its properties as of December 31, 2019, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "All of our Properties (but not properties for which we hold an option to purchase but do not yet own) have been subject to Phase I environmental assessments or updates of existing Phase I environmental assessments. Such assessments generally consisted of a visual inspection of the Properties, review of federal and state environmental databases and certain information regarding historic uses of the Property and adjacent areas and the preparation and issuance of written reports. Some of the Properties contain, or contained, underground storage tanks used for storing petroleum products or wastes typically associated with automobile service or other operations conducted at the Properties. Certain Properties contain, or contained, dry-cleaning establishments utilizing solvents. Where believed to be warranted, samplings of building materials or subsurface investigations were undertaken. At certain Properties, where warranted by the conditions, we have developed and implemented an operations and maintenance program that establishes operating procedures with respect to asbestos-containing materials. The cost associated with the development and implementation of such programs was not material. We have also obtained environmental insurance coverage at certain of our Properties. "We believe that our Properties are in compliance in all material respects with all federal, state and local ordinances and regulations regarding the handling, discharge and emission of hazardous or toxic substances. As of December 31, 2019, we have recorded in our consolidated financial statements a liability of US$3.0 million related to potential future asbestos abatement activities at our Properties which are not expected to have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations. We have not been notified by any governmental authority, and are not otherwise aware, of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic substances in connection with any of our present or former Properties. Therefore, we have not recorded any liability related to hazardous or toxic substances. Nevertheless, it is possible that the environmental assessments available to us do not reveal all potential environmental liabilities. It is also possible that subsequent investigations will identify material contamination, that adverse environmental conditions have arisen subsequent to the performance of the environmental assessments, or that there are material environmental liabilities of which management is unaware. Moreover, no assurances can be given that (i) future laws, ordinances or regulations will not impose any material environmental liability or (ii) the current environmental condition of the Properties has not been or will not be affected by tenants and occupants of the Properties, by the condition of properties in the vicinity of the Properties or by third parties unrelated to us, the Operating Partnership or the relevant Property's partnership." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/pVnWe0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dixie Group Still Faces Exposure Suits at Dec. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Dixie Group, Inc. continues to defend itself against lawsuits related to asbestos matters, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. The Company states, "We are one of multiple parties to three lawsuits filed in Madison County Illinois, styled Brenda Bridgeman, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Bridgeman, Deceased, vs. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., f/k/a Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al No. 15-L-374, styled Charles Anderson, Pltf., vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 and styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2. "All three lawsuits entail a claim for damages to be determined in excess of US$50,000 filed on behalf of either a former employee or the estate of an individual which alleges that the deceased contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos while employed by us. Discovery in each matter is ongoing, and a tentative trial date has been set for one of the cases. We have denied liability, are defending the matters vigorously and are unable to estimate our potential exposure to loss, if any, at this time. "In August of 2017, the lawsuit styled Sandra D. Watts, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Dianne Averett, Deceased vs. 4520 Corp., Inc. f/k/a Benjamin F. Shaw Company, et al No. 12-L-2032 was placed in the category of "special closed with settlements and bankruptcy claims pending" to all remaining defendants. "In March 2018, the lawsuit styled Charles Anderson, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Charles Anderson, Deceased vs. 3M Company, et al, No. 17-L-525 was dismissed without prejudice. "In October 2018, the lawsuit styled Danny Atkins and Pamela Atkins, Pltfs., vs. Aurora Pump Company, et al. No. 18-L-2 was dismissed without prejudice." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/cHTVFu ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Units Still Faces 32 PI Suits at January 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMS Inc.'s subsidiaries continue to defend themselves against 32 pending asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits as of January 31, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020. The Company states, "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. "Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979. "Since 2002 and as of January 31, 2020, approximately 1,007 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been filed and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 965 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 32 are pending and only 10 have been settled, which settlements have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/5c2NFA ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Defends 3,465 Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of December 31, 2019, 3,398 individual cases and 67 multiple-plaintiff cases are pending that allege actual or potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or exposure to products allegedly sold by Graybar Electric Company, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against us in the future. Our insurance carriers have historically borne virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation and are continuing to do so. Accordingly, our future liability with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the continued solvency of our insurance carriers. Other factors that could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants. Because any of these factors may change, our future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future periods." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/12b7Tk ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 2 Suits and Claims for $30,000 ------------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company settled two asbestos-related lawsuits and claims for US$30,000 in the three months ended February 29, 2020, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. "We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured. Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. "Based on currently available information, we have concluded that the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/UT0ur0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: IntriCon Corp. Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- IntriCon Corporation continues to face asbestos lawsuits related to its discontinued heat technologies segment, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. IntriCon Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant along with a number of other parties in lawsuits alleging that plaintiffs have or may have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos products or equipment containing asbestos sold by one or more named defendants. These lawsuits relate to the discontinued heat technologies segment which was sold in March 2005. Due to the non-informative nature of the complaints, the Company does not know whether any of the complaints state valid claims against the Company. "Certain insurance carriers have informed the Company that the primary policies for the period August 1, 1970-1978 have been exhausted and that the carriers will no longer provide defense and insurance coverage under those policies. However, the Company has other primary and excess insurance policies that the Company believes afford coverage for later years. "Some of these other primary insurers have accepted defense and insurance coverage for these suits, and some of them have either ignored the Company's tender of defense of these cases, or have denied coverage, or have accepted the tenders but asserted a reservation of rights and/or advised the Company that they need to investigate further. Because settlement payments are applied to all years a litigant was deemed to have been exposed to asbestos, the Company believes that it will have funds available for defense and insurance coverage under the non-exhausted primary and excess insurance policies. "However, unlike the older policies, the more recent policies have deductible amounts for defense and settlements costs that the Company will be required to pay; accordingly, the Company expects that its litigation costs will increase in the future. Further, many of the policies covering later years (approximately 1984 and thereafter) have exclusions for any asbestos products or operations, and thus do not provide insurance coverage for asbestos-related lawsuits. "The Company does not believe that the asserted exhaustion of some of the primary insurance coverage for the 1970-1978 period will have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. Management believes that the number of insurance carriers involved in the defense of the suits, and the significant number of policy years and policy limits under which these insurance carriers are insuring the Company, make the ultimate disposition of these lawsuits not material to the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/JPTesc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kaanapali Land, LLC continues to face personal injury suits related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "Kaanapali Land, as successor by merger to other entities, and D/C have been named as defendants in personal injury actions allegedly based on exposure to asbestos. While there are relatively few cases that name Kaanapali Land, there were a substantial number of cases that were pending against D/C on the U.S. mainland (primarily in California). "Cases against Kaanapali Land (hereafter, "Kaanapali Land asbestos cases") are allegedly based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in California. Each entity defending these cases believes that it has meritorious defenses against these actions, but can give no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of these cases. The defense of these cases has had a material adverse effect on the financial condition of D/C as it has been forced to file a voluntary petition for liquidation. "Kaanapali Land does not believe that it has liability, directly or indirectly, for D/C's obligations in those cases. Kaanapali Land does not presently believe that the cases in which it is named will result in any material liability to Kaanapali Land; however, there can be no assurance in that regard." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/JcidYt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitex Int'l Still Faces PL Suits at December 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Manitex International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it has been named as a defendant in several multi-defendant asbestos related product liability lawsuits. The Company states, "In certain instances, the Company is indemnified by a former owner of the product line in question. In the remaining cases the plaintiff has, to date, not been able to establish any exposure by the plaintiff to the Company's products. The Company is uninsured with respect to these claims but believes that it will not incur any material liability with respect to these claims." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/dyO4sO ASBESTOS UPDATE: Metropolitan Life Had 61,134 PI Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Metropolitan Life Insurance Company disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that there are 61,134 asbestos personal injury claims at year ended December 31, 2019. The Company also disclosed that there are 3,187 new claims filed in 2019. Settlement payments during the year amounted to US$49.4 million. The Company states, "Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owed no duty to the plaintiffs — it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. "The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/ZRdnix ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Has 108 Pending Cases at December 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. is still defending itself against 108 asbestos-related cases, involving a total of approximately 583 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 108 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. "Based on information available to us, including facts concerning historical operations, the rate of new claims, the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and our prior experience in the defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. "In addition to the matters described above, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters. We currently believe that the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes (including asbestos-related claims), individually or in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/2LvXMc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Holdings Defends 114 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a co-defendant in approximately 114 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 215 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "These asbestos cases generally relate to production and sale of asbestos-containing products and allege various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability, and seek compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages. "In every asbestos case in which we are named as a party, the complaints are filed against multiple named defendants. In substantially all of the asbestos cases, the plaintiffs either claim damages in excess of a specified amount, typically a minimum amount sufficient to establish jurisdiction of the court in which the case was filed (jurisdictional minimums generally range from US$25,000 to US$75,000), or do not specify the monetary damages sought. To the extent that any specific amount of damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all named defendants. "There are three asbestos cases, involving 19 plaintiffs, that plead specified damages against named defendants. In each of the three cases, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on a variety of potentially alternative causes of action. In two cases, the plaintiff has alleged three counts at US$3 million compensatory and punitive damages each; one count at US$3 million compensatory and US$1 million punitive damages; one count at US$1 million. In the third case, the plaintiff has alleged compensatory and punitive damages, each in the amount of US$20.0 million, for three separate causes of action, and US$5.0 million compensatory damages for the fifth cause of action. "Historically, we have been dismissed from asbestos cases on the basis that the plaintiff incorrectly sued one of our subsidiaries or because the plaintiff failed to identify any asbestos-containing product manufactured or sold by us or our subsidiaries. We intend to vigorously defend these asbestos cases and believe we will continue to be successful in being dismissed from such cases. However, it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this uncertainty, and although our results of operations and cash flows for a particular period could be adversely affected by asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity or results of operations. Among the factors management considered in reaching this conclusion were: (a) our historical success in being dismissed from these types of lawsuits on the bases mentioned; (b) many cases have been improperly filed against one of our subsidiaries; (c) in many cases the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal relationship to us or our products or premises; (d) in many cases, the plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all or that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure to asbestos; and (e) the complaints assert claims against multiple defendants and, in most cases, the damages alleged are not attributed to individual defendants. Additionally, we do not believe that the amounts claimed in any of the asbestos cases are meaningful indicators of our potential exposure because the amounts claimed typically bear no relation to the extent of the plaintiff's injury, if any. "Our cost of defending these lawsuits has not been material to date and, based upon available information, our management does not expect its future costs for asbestos-related lawsuits to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, liquidity or financial position." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/wjOoN2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Quaker Chemical Unit Still Faces Suits at Dec. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Quaker Chemical Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that it currently estimates its subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for asbestos claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding costs of defense). The Company states, "An inactive subsidiary of the Company that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than proceeds received from insurance settlements. To date, the overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is approximately US$0.5 million (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies had been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. "In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for US$15.0 million and US$20.0 million, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. "In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two years prior written notice. "As of December 31, 2019, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/TH0yYM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toro Company Still Defends Suits at January 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Toro Company is still facing asbestos-related legal proceedings, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended January 31, 2020. The Company states, "We are a party to litigation in the ordinary course of business. Litigation occasionally involves claims for punitive, as well as compensatory, damages arising out of the use of our products. Although we are self-insured to some extent, we maintain insurance against certain product liability losses. We are also subject to litigation and administrative and judicial proceedings with respect to claims involving asbestos and the discharge of hazardous substances into the environment. Some of these claims assert damages and liability for personal injury, remedial investigations or clean-up, and other costs and damages." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/hjXq5Q ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Auto Parts Units Still Defend Suits at Dec. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.'s subsidiaries remain defendants in lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes with asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2019. The Company states, "A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary WAG, are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out-of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/I70fYj ASBESTOS UPDATE: Valhi Unit Faces 108 Pending PI Cases at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Valhi, Inc.'s subsidiary, NL Industries, Inc., has 108 pending personal injury cases related to products manufactured in past operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company states, "NL has been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by NL. There are 108 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 583 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,715 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio courts. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, NL has not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. Based on information available to us, including facts concerning historical operations, the rate of new claims, the number of claims from which NL has been dismissed, and its prior experience in the defense of these matters. "We believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with NL's historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. NL has sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which it has entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from NL." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/HH7XH8 ********* 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 2020. 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 ***