/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/200505.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 5, 2020, Vol. 22, No. 90 Headlines ACER THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Skiadas Class Suit Underway AIR CANADA: Sued by Levu for Not Refunding Cancelled Flights ALTRIA GROUP: Blomquist Files Antitrust Class Action ANAPTYSBIO INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 26 Deadline ANAPTYSBIO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending BANK OF AMERICA: Profiles Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir. BARNES & NOBLE: Puleo Sues Over Monopoly in Course Materials BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending BESTCARE INC: Denied De Carvajal OT Pay, Wage Statements, Says Suit BP PLC: 2,701 Lawsuits Over LMPC Claims Pending as of Dec. 31 BP PLC: 2nd & Final Payment in Scharfstein Settlement Due in July BP PLC: Atlantic Richfield Still Defends Lead Paint Lawsuits BP PLC: Class Certification Ruling in ACS Suit Under Appeal BP PLC: Dismissal of Canadian Class Suit Under Appeal BP PLC: Subsidiaries Still Defend Fishermen Class Suit in Mexico CHA FOR TEA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Workers, Rios Says CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Predatory Towing Lawsuit To Proceed CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Sued by Nighttown Over Denied Coverage DALE PHARMACY: Ruce Katz Seeks to Stop Sending of Unsolicited Ads DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 26 Deadline DSW RESTAURANT: Proctor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Morrison Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. EMERITUS CORP: Bailey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ENSIGN US DRILLING: Ortiz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages EQUIFAX INC: June 26 Hearing on $149MM Securities Settlement Set EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 22 Deadline EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Announces Class Action EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen First to File Class Action Lawsuit FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in SDNY G WILLI FOOD: Settlement in Consumer Suit Approved G WILLI FOOD: Settlement in Suit v. Euro European Dairies Approved GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Cir. GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Blake Hits Data Breach Over Credit Card Payment GOLDEN STAR: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit GOLDEN STAR: Thornton Law Alerts Shareholders to Class Action HACKBARTH DELIVERY: Horne Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages HD SUPPLY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 21 HEAVEN SENT PIZZA: Martin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Thornton Law Notes of May 12 Deadline JPMORGAN CHASE: Deceives PPP Loan Applicants, Hyde-Edwards Claims JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Haideri Suit Over Buyout by Super ROI LEGG MASON: Gordon Sues Over Franklin Resources Merger Deal LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS' Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Hanks Class Suit in NY LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Underway LUCKIN COFFEE: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action LUCKIN COFFEE: Wolf Haldenstein Investigating Serious New Claims LUSH INC: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under Labor Code LYFT INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rogers Employment Suit MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Rezai-Hariri Sues Over Monthly Membership Fees MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing MANSCAPED LLC: Scanlon Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls MESA AIR: June 1 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion MIMEDX GROUP: Continues to Defend Carpenters Pension Fund Suit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: HomeServices Appeals Ruling in Sitzer Suit NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Stein Balks at Approval of Incentive Plan NEW YORK SPORTS CLUB: Faces Class Action for Fees Despite Shutdown NEW YORK: Board Appeals Decision in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit NEW YORK: Board Appeals Judgment in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit NORWEGIAN AIR: Daversa-Evdyriadis Seeks Refund for Shelved Flight NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Stipulation to Dismiss Jackie888 Suit Granted NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu Securities Class Action Dismissed OHIO CASUALTY: Faces Pacific Suit Over Denied Insurance Benefits PACE UNIVERSITY: Marbury Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees PAM TRANSPORT: Independent Contractors' Class Suit Ongoing PAM TRANSPORT: Settlement of Employees Suit Wins Initial Approval PAYSIGN INC: Pomerantz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline PIZZA NOVA: Delivery Drivers Launch C$150MM Class Action Suit PNC FINANCIAL: Lincoln Seeks to Stop Illegal PPP-Linked Practices POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Johannessohn Appeals Ruling to Eighth Circuit PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Operators May Face Class Action RAINBOW REALTY: Rent-To-Own Class Action Suit Okayed to Proceed REM CONSTRUCTION: Proposed Consumer Class Action Denied RING LLC: Lebak Wants Disclosure of Add'l Fee for Video Recording RIPPLE: Amended Suit Furthers That XRP Not a Security RIVIANA FOODS: Appeals Ruling in Clevenger Suit to Ninth Circuit ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Court Approves Settlement in NY Securities Suit RTI SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 22 Deadline RTI SURGICAL: Kaskela Law Notes of May 22 Plaintiff Deadline SF TIRE: Faces Sweet Class Suit in California Superior Court SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit TELECOM ARGENTINA: Faces Class Suit by Consumer Groups TERRAFORM POWER: Dearborn Police & Rosson Class Suits Consolidated TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity Suit Challenges Sale to AcelRx TREASURY WINE ESTATES: Hit With Shareholder Class Action TREASURY WINE ESTATES: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action TRUMP CORP: ACN Appeals S.D.N.Y. Opinion and Order to 2nd Circuit TRUMP CORP: Appeals Opinion and Order in Doe Suit to 2nd Circuit TUFIN SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Primozich Class Suit in NY TUFIN SOFTWARE: Rosen Reminds Investors of Class Action UNITED STATES: Dowell Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS: Palade Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit VMWARE INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Class Action VMWARE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Class Action Lawsuit VMWARE INC: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action VMWARE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit VMWARE INC: Thornton Law Firm Investigating Class Action Suit WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Arsenault Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay WHEELCARE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Meal Period Premiums, Gbotoe Says [^] Best Practices in Qualifying the Class ********* ACER THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Skiadas Class Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Acer Therapeutics Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion seeking dismissal of the class action entitlted, Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics, is pending. On July 1, 2019, plaintiff Tyler Sell filed a putative class action lawsuit, Sell v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., against the Company, Chris Schelling and Harry Palmin, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that prior to the receipt of the Complete Response Letter from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Company made material false and misleading statements or omissions which allegedly constitute securities fraud. On August 12, 2019, a stockholder's derivative action, Gress v. Acer Therapeutics Inc., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting damages resulting from alleged breach of fiduciary duties, based on the same facts at issue in the Sell case. The Company believes both suits are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. With the selection of a lead plaintiff, the Sell case is now known as Skiadas v. Acer Therapeutics. On February 7, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit. The Company has not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2019 because a potential loss is not probable or reasonably estimable given the preliminary nature of the proceedings. Acer Therapeutics Inc. a pharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development, and commercialization of therapies for serious rare and life-threatening diseases with significant unmet medical needs. The company is based in Newton, Massachusetts. AIR CANADA: Sued by Levu for Not Refunding Cancelled Flights ------------------------------------------------------------ Thomas Levu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AIR CANADA, INC., Case No. 6:20-cv-00703-WWB-LRH (M.D. Fla., April 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract damages arising from the Defendant's failure to provide the required refunds owed to the Plaintiff. Air Canada's contracts include a uniform promise--if a flight is cancelled, consumers who paid money in exchange for a ticket on said flight are refunded their purchase price. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff alleges, after recently cancelling numerous flights due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, Air Canada declined to abide by its contractual obligations, thereby, breaching its contract with numerous customers, including the Plaintiff. On December 31, 2019, authorities in China confirmed the existence of an unknown respiratory virus. Eventually, the virus was identified as a coronavirus, referred to as COVID-19. Cases of COVID-19 were confirmed within the United States around January 20, 2020. As a result, consumer demand for travel decreased, both within and outside the United States. Restrictions of various timeframes and scope were implemented by federal and local governments, including discouraging non-essential travel. Because of declining consumer demand, Air Canada cancelled numerous flights in the United States. Such cancellations entitle customers, like the Plaintiff, to a refund of their money, according to the complaint. In breach of its contracts and in violation of the law, Air Canada nevertheless refuses to provide such refunds. On April 6, 2020, however, Air Canada provided a new notice, informing the Plaintiff that his flight had been cancelled. However, rather than refunding Plaintiff his payment for the cancelled flight, Air Canada instead informed Plaintiff he could only use the funds to secure travel on a different flight during the next 24 months. Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff could not take the flight he booked and for which he fully paid, and notwithstanding that Defendant cannot offer comparable accommodations on another flight, the Plaintiff was not given a refund, but was only offered a credit for use on a different flight, says the complaint. Plaintiff Levu purchased a ticket from Air Canada for travel from Orlando, Florida, to Toronto, Canada, and, from there, to Tokyo, Japan, which was scheduled to depart on May 14, 2020. Air Canada is a large air carrier that conducts flights mostly in Canada and the United States and is the fifth largest airline in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Post Office Box 1400036 Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Phone: 407-603-6031 Email: jacob.phillips@mormandpllc.com ed@ednormand.com service@normandpllc.com ALTRIA GROUP: Blomquist Files Antitrust Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Matthew Blomquist, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Altria Group, Inc. and Juul Labs, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02512, (N.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. Altria and Juul are the largest e-cigarette manufacturers in the country. In December 20, 2018, Altria purchased a 35% non-voting stake in Juul which resulted in Altria's seemingly orchestrated exit from the closed-system e-cigarette market in exchange for a portion of Juul's profits thus propelling Juul to a dominant position in the market after eliminating its competition allowing it to charge supra-competitive prices for its products. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd A. Seaver, Esq. Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. Carl Hammarskjold, Esq. Colleen Cleary, Esq. BERMAN TABACCO 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-3200 Facsimile: (415) 433-6382 Email: tseaver@bermantabacco.com mpearson@bermantabacco.com chammarskjold@bermantabacco.com ccleary@bermantabacco.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com - and - Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C One Tower Bridge 100 Front Street, Suite 520 West Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (215) 399-4770 Email: achristina@lowey.com ANAPTYSBIO INC: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of AnaptysBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANAB). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. AnaptysBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANAB) Class Period: October 10, 2017 to November 7, 2019 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020 During the Class Period, the Company's lead asset was etokimab (formerly ANB020), a drug intended for the treatment of various inflammatory diseases. On October 10, 2017—the first day of the Class Period—the Company reported data from an interim analysis of its Phase 2a clinical trial of etokimab in atopic dermatitis. The complaint, filed on March 25, 2020, alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the purported efficacy of etokimab, touting data from the Company's Phase 2a trial in peanut allergies as showing a "remarkable efficacy result" and describing the drug as having a "pretty profound efficacy" in its treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis based on AnaptysBio's Phase 2a trial data for that indication. In truth, defendants provided misleading clinical trial data which failed to disclose key information and used questionable analysis, making the trial results regarding etokimab's efficacy and its prospects appear far better than they were. As a result of defendants' misrepresentations, shares of AnaptysBio common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The truth emerged through a series of disclosures, beginning on March 26, 2018, when an analyst from RBC Capital Markets issued a report that questioned the veracity of data from AnaptysBio's interim analysis of its Phase 2a clinical trial for etokimab in adult patients with peanut allergies that the Company had reported earlier that day. In particular, the RBC report revealed that the response rate for etokimab in the full trial population "does not appear to be meaningfully differentiated" relative to a placebo. Less than five months later, in August 2018, the Company abandoned its clinical pursuit of etokimab as a treatment for peanut allergies. Then, on June 21, 2019, an analyst from Credit Suisse issued a report questioning the reliability of the Company's Phase 2a atopic dermatitis trial data. Specifically, the Credit Suisse report questioned patients' use of topical corticosteroids to supplement treatment of their symptoms as a rescue therapy during the study and criticized the Company's failure to provide details on the timing of rescue therapy use or whether the subjects that utilized rescue therapy were classified as responders. As a result of the Company's misleading atopic dermatitis trial data, Credit Suisse was "now less certain about etokimab's efficacy profile, particularly in atopic dermatitis." On this news, the price of AnaptysBio common stock declined nearly 12%, from a closing price of $67.02 per share on June 20, 2019, to a closing price of $59.24 per share on June 21, 2019. Then, on November 8, 2019, the Company announced "very disappoint[ing]" data from its ATLAS trial, a Phase 2b multi-dose study which evaluated the efficacy of etokimab in approximately 300 patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Specifically, AnaptysBio disclosed that each of the etokimab dosing arms "failed to meet the primary endpoint of the trial" by not demonstrating statistically greater efficacy relative to a placebo. On this news, the price of AnaptysBio common stock declined nearly 72%, from a closing price of $36.16 per share on November 7, 2019, to a closing price of $10.18 on November 8, 2019. For more information on the AnaptysBio, class action go to: https://bespc.com/ANAB Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Contact: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Tel: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com Web site: http://www.bespc.com/[GN] ANAPTYSBIO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Notifies of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against AnaptysBio, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANAB) and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired AnaptysBio securities between October 10, 2017 and November 7, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/anab. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements that: (1) important data from the Company's Phase 2a trial in atopic dermatitis, including the timing and extent of patients' use of topical corticosteroids as a rescue therapy during the study and whether any of the patients that utilized rescue therapy were classified as responders at a given time; (2) key information from the Company's Phase 2a trial in peanut allergy, including patients' average cumulative peanut dose tolerated at day 14 after the administration of etokimab or placebo as well as whether the Company's decision to exclude 20% of the patients enrolled in the study from the interim analysis due to their mild symptoms was retrospective; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the efficacy and prospects of AnaptysBio's lead drug asset, etokimab (formerly ANB020), in the treatment of atopic dermatitis and peanut allergy were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: www.bgandg.com/anab or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in AnaptysBio you have until May 26, 2020 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Contact: Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz Tel: 212-697-6484 E-mail: info@bgandg.com [GN] ASTEC INDUSTRIES: Bid to Dismiss Retirement System Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Astec Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's motion to dismiss the class action suit entitled, City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS, is still pending. The Company and certain of its current and former executive officers have been named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed on February 1, 2019, as amended on August 26, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The action is styled City of Taylor General Employees Retirement System v. Astec Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00024-PLR-CHS. The amended complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making allegedly false and misleading statements. The amended complaint further alleges that the individual defendants are liable for such violations as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The putative class action was purportedly filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's stock between July 26, 2016 and October 22, 2018 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Defendants named in the action filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 25, 2019, which is fully briefed and pending before the Court. The Company is unable to determine whether or not a future loss will be incurred due to this litigation, or estimate a range of loss, if any, at this time. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Astec Industries, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, and markets equipment and components for the road building, aggregate processing, geothermal, water, oil and gas, and wood processing industries in the United States and internationally. The company was founded in 1972 and is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee. BANK OF AMERICA: Profiles Appeals D. Maryland Ruling to 4th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Profiles, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Profiles, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 1:20-cv-00894-SAG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, violations of the Small Business Administration's 7(A) loan program, a declaratory judgment, and a preliminary and permanent injunction. At a time of severe national need, the Defendants chose privileged discriminatory policies of corporate greed over the needs of America's small businesses, the Plaintiff avers. Authorized by Congress and the President under the CARES Act and its loan programs to administer billions of dollars in federal funding to small businesses in a fair, equitable and uniform manner, the Defendants implemented a loan process that unlawfully prioritized their existing borrowing clients and barred their depository clients and other small businesses from even applying for funds from the governmental loan programs, the Plaintiff alleges. The appellate case is captioned as Profiles, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 20-1438, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant PROFILES, INC., Individually, for themselves and for all others similarly situated, is represented by: Marie Celeste Bruce, Esq. Charles Samuel Fax, Esq. RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON, LLC 7979 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (301) 951-0150 Email: cbruce@rwllaw.com cfax@rwllaw.com – and - Barry Louis Gogel, Esq. Liesel Johanna Schopler, Esq. RIFKIN, WEINER, LIVINGSTON, LEVITAN & SILVER, LLC 2002 Clipper Park Road Baltimore, MD 21211 Telephone: (410) 769-8080 Email: bgogel@rwllaw.com lschopler@rwlls.com Defendants-Appellees BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., are represented by: Enu Mainigi, Esq. Craig Darren Singer, Esq. Kenneth Charles Smurzynski, Esq. Beth A. Stewart, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP 725 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Telephone: (202) 434-5420 E-mail: emainigi@wc.com BARNES & NOBLE: Puleo Sues Over Monopoly in Course Materials ------------------------------------------------------------ Bruce Puleo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BARNES & NOBLE COLLEGE BOOKSELLERS, LLC; BARNES & NOBLE EDUCATION, INC.; CENGAGE LEARNING, INC.; FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP; MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION HOLDINGS, LLC; and PEARSON EDUCATION, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-04990 (D.N.J., April 23, 2020), accuses the Defendants of violating the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act by monopolizing the market for sales of course materials. After years of ever-higher textbook prices, beginning in or around 2008 the availability of college textbooks via discount online retailers and the secondary used college textbook market began gradually to put downward pressure on college textbook prices. To combat these natural market forces, the Defendants concocted the anticompetitive "Inclusive Access" conspiracy, the Plaintiff alleges. Through this scheme, the Defendants have monopolized the market for sales of course materials in any course in which the Inclusive Access policy applies. Inclusive Access eliminates consumer choice by forcing students to obtain their course materials in one format (online digital access) via one source (their official on-campus bookstore). As a consequence, for those courses to which Inclusive Access applies, the Defendants face no competition from online retailers, the used textbook market, or elsewhere, says the complaint. Inclusive Access enables the Defendants to charge higher prices for course materials than they could charge in a market free from the Inclusive Access restrains, and there are no legitimate reasons for those restraints. The Plaintiff purchased course materials through Inclusive Access directly from one or more of the Defendants. The Defendants are dominant college textbook publishers and dominant college textbook retail chains.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William G. Caldes, Esq. Eugene A. Spector, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. Diana J. Zinser, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C. Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3420 Philadelphia, PA 18103 Phone: (215) 496-0300 Email: espector@srkattorneys.com bcaldes@srkattorneys.com jspector@srkattorneys.com dzinser@srkattorneys.com - and - David P. McLafferty, Esq. MCLAFFERTY LAW FIRM, P.C. 923 Fayette Street Conchohocken, PA 19428 Phone: (612) 940-4000 Facsimile: (612) 940-4007 Email: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com BAXTER INT'L: Bid to Dismiss IV Solutions Sales Suit Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion to dismiss the consolidated class action suit related to sales of IV solutions remains pending. In November 2016, a purported antitrust class action complaint seeking monetary and injunctive relief was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among manufacturers of IV solutions to restrict output and affect pricing in connection with a shortage of such solutions. Similar parallel actions subsequently were filed. In January 2017, a single consolidated complaint covering these matters was filed in the Northern District of Illinois. The company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in February 2017. The court granted the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint without prejudice in July 2018. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 6, 2018. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 9, 2018. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, develops and provides a portfolio of healthcare products. The company operates through North and South America; Europe, Middle East and Africa; and Asia-Pacific segments. Baxter International Inc. was founded in 1931 and is headquartered in Deerfield, Illinois. BESTCARE INC: Denied De Carvajal OT Pay, Wage Statements, Says Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Nubia De Carvajal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bestcare, Inc, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-01791 (E.D. N.Y., April 13, 2020), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law, New York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. Bestcare provides nursing, therapy and home healthcare services for elderly and disabled individuals in New York City and in the surrounding areas where De Carvajal worked as an hourly and live-in Home Health Aide providing full-time patient care. The nature of her job requires her to work in excess of 40 hours per workweek but claims that she wasn't paid for her overtime hours. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 227-5700 Fax: (212) 406-6890 BP PLC: 2,701 Lawsuits Over LMPC Claims Pending as of Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that as of 31 December 2019, there were 2,701 pending lawsuits brought by class members claiming later-manifested physical conditions (LMPCs). In 2012 the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (Medical Settlement) was entered into with the PSC. It involves payments to qualifying class members based on a matrix for certain Specified Physical Conditions (SPCs), as well as a 21-year Periodic Medical Consultation Program (PMCP) for qualifying class members, and also includes provisions regarding class members pursuing claims for later-manifested physical conditions (LMPCs). The deadline for submitting SPC and PMCP claims was 12 February 2015. A total of 37,226 claims have been submitted. As of 31 December 2019, 27,604 claims (comprising 22,831 SPC claims and 4,773 PMCP claims) have been approved for compensation totalling approximately $67 million; 9,621 claims have been denied; and 1 claim is pending determination. In order to seek compensation from BP for an LMPC, class members must file a notice with the Medical Claims Administrator within 4 years after the date of first diagnosis of the LMPC. As of 31 December 2019, there were 2,701 pending lawsuits brought by class members claiming LMPCs. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BP PLC: 2nd & Final Payment in Scharfstein Settlement Due in July ----------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the second and final payment of the settlement in the case, Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products, LLC, is due in July 2020. A class action lawsuit was filed against BP West Coast Products, LLC (BPWCP) in Oregon State Court under the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act on behalf of customers who used a debit card at ARCO gasoline stations in Oregon during the period 1 January 2011 to 30 August 2013, alleging that ARCO sites in Oregon failed to provide sufficient notice of the 35 cents per transaction debit card fee. In January 2014, the jury rendered a verdict against BPWCP and awarded statutory damages of $200 per class member. On 25 August 2015, the trial court determined the size of the class to be slightly in excess of two million members. On 31 May 2016 the trial court entered a judgment against BPWCP for the amount of $417.3 million. On 31 May 2018 the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling. In March 2019, BP and the Plaintiffs agreed to a settlement of the class action lawsuit, subject to final court approval. On 4 June 2019 the court granted final approval of the settlement agreement. The judgment dismissing the case was entered on 13 June 2019. No appeal was taken from the judgment on or before the 14 July 2019 deadline. On 15 July 2019, BP made its first payment under the terms of the settlement agreement. The second and final payment is due in July 2020. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BP PLC: Atlantic Richfield Still Defends Lead Paint Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's subsidiary, Atlantic Richfield Company, remains a defendant in lawsuits, several of which purport to be class actions, related to lead paint matters. Since 1987, Atlantic Richfield Company (Atlantic Richfield), a subsidiary of BP, has been named as a co-defendant in numerous lawsuits brought in the US alleging injury to persons and property caused by lead pigment in paint. The majority of the lawsuits have been abandoned or dismissed against Atlantic Richfield. Atlantic Richfield is named in these lawsuits as alleged successor to International Smelting and Refining and another company that manufactured lead pigment during the period 1920-1946. The plaintiffs include individuals and governmental entities. Several of the lawsuits purport to be class actions. The lawsuits seek various remedies including compensation to lead-poisoned children, cost to find and remove lead paint from buildings, medical monitoring and screening programmes, public warning and education of lead hazards, reimbursement of government healthcare costs and special education for lead-poisoned citizens and punitive damages. No lawsuit against Atlantic Richfield has been settled nor has Atlantic Richfield been subject to a final adverse judgment in any proceeding. The amounts claimed and, if such suits were successful, the costs of implementing the remedies sought in the various cases could be substantial. While it is not possible to predict the outcome of these legal actions, Atlantic Richfield believes that it has valid defences. BP said, "It intends to defend such actions vigorously and believes that the incurrence of liability is remote. Consequently, BP believes that the impact of these lawsuits on the group's results, financial position or liquidity will not be material." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BP PLC: Class Certification Ruling in ACS Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has taken an appeal from the trial court's decision granting class certification. On 3 December 2015 and 29 March 2016, Acciones Colectivas de Sinaloa (ACS) filed two class actions (which have since been consolidated) in a Mexican Federal District Court on behalf of several Mexican states against against BP Exploration & Production Inc.(BPXP), BP America Production Company (BPAPC), and other purported BP subsidiaries. In these class actions, plaintiffs seek an order requiring the BP defendants to repair the damage to the Gulf of Mexico, to pay penalties, and to compensate plaintiffs for damage to property, to health and for economic loss. BPXP and BPAPC opposed class certification and sought dismissal, principally on the basis that no oil reached Mexican waters or land and there was no economic or environmental harm in Mexico. On 25 September 2019, the court certified the class. On 15 October 2019, BP appealed that decision. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BP PLC: Dismissal of Canadian Class Suit Under Appeal ----------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the plaintiff in the Canadian class lawsuit has taken an appeal from a lower court's order dismissing the lawsuit. Following various legal proceedings, on 26 February 2016, a plaintiff seeking to assert claims under Canadian law against BP on behalf of a class of Canadian residents who allegedly suffered losses because of their purchase of BP ordinary shares and American depository share (ADSs) filed a motion in the Court of Appeal for Ontario to lift a stay on the action. The plaintiff's motion was granted on 29 July 2016. On 1 September 2017 the court granted in part and denied in part BP's motion for summary judgment, limiting the case to three alleged misstatements and narrowing the class period. On 3 April 2018, the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed that decision. On 24 June 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding fraud claims. On 8 November 2019, the court granted BP's motion to dismiss the case in its entirety. On 6 December 2019, the plaintiff appealed that decision. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. BP PLC: Subsidiaries Still Defend Fishermen Class Suit in Mexico ---------------------------------------------------------------- BP p.l.c. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company's subsidiaries continue to face a class action litigation in Mexico City. On 18 October 2012, before a Mexican Federal District Court located in Mexico City, a class action complaint was filed against BP America Production Company (BPAPC) and other BP subsidiaries. The plaintiffs, who allegedly are fishermen, are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages for the class members who allegedly suffered economic losses, as well as an order requiring BP to remediate environmental damage resulting from the Incident, to provide funding for the preservation of the environment and to conduct environmental impact studies in the Gulf of Mexico for the next 10 years. On 27 June 2018, BP answered the complaint by seeking dismissal on various grounds including that no oil reached Mexican waters or land and there was no economic or environmental harm in Mexico. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. BP p.l.c. engages in energy business worldwide. It operates through three segments: Upstream, Downstream, and Rosneft. BP p.l.c. was founded in 1889 and is headquartered in London, the United Kingdom. CHA FOR TEA: Fails to Properly Pay Restaurant Workers, Rios Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO RIOS, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. CHA FOR TEA, INC., a California corporation; ALHAMBRA CHA FOR TEA, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive, Case No. 20STCV15348 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 22, 2020), challenges the Defendants' employment practices of failing to compensate Restaurant Employees at the applicable prevailing rate and denying earned wages, including overtime pay. The lawsuit also seeks civil penalties under California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 alleging that the Defendants failed to pay for all hours worked, to provide legally compliant meal and rest breaks and to provide accrued sick days from February 6, 2019, to the present. The Plaintiff commenced his employment with the Defendants in September 2015, and worked as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendants operate Cha for Tea cafe/restaurant locations in the greater Los Angeles area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. Alfred Movsesyan, Esq. Katrina Castillo, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: 818 547 5300 Facsimile: 818 547 5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com alfred@boyamianlaw.com katrina@boyamianlaw.com CHICAGO, IL: Class Action Predatory Towing Lawsuit To Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fisher from Land Line Magazine reports that a class action lawsuit against the city of Chicago, Illinois, accusing the Windy City of predatory towing will proceed after a federal court denied the city's motion to dismiss in part. On March 18, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern Illinois District of Illinois' Eastern Division denied Chicago's motion to dismiss on seven counts. However, Kennelly granted the motion to dismiss on the remaining three counts of the 10-count lawsuit. The lawsuit is based on Chicago's towing and impoundment of vehicles it deems to be abandoned. Also, it challenges the city's disposal of impounded vehicles that remain unclaimed by their owners, according to the court opinion. Plaintiffs are seeking damages for alleged constitutional violations, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, and claims under state law. Kennelly's opinion and order denies the motion to dismiss for the following counts: * Declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of tow class. * Two counts of violation of due process. * Two counts of declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the vehicle disposal class. * Unjust enrichment on behalf of the vehicle disposal class. * Order Chicago's Department of Streets and Sanitation to send an additional notice of impending vehicle disposal prior to disposing of a vehicle towed and impounded. The three counts that were dismissed include unjust enrichment on behalf of the tow class, declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the vehicle disposal class (unreasonable seizure) and violation of due process on behalf of the vehicle disposal class (unreasonable seizure). Andrea Santiago, a senior citizen with multiple sclerosis who is confined to a wheelchair, alleges that the city of Chicago took her car and eventually sold it for scrap metal without giving her due process. At the heart of the case is Illinois legislation from 2005 that addresses predatory towing in Chicago. [GN] CINCINNATI INSURANCE: Sued by Nighttown Over Denied Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ Nighttown, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. THE CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. CV 20 932070 (Ohio Com. Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., April 23, 2020), arises out of the Defendant's failure to provide coverage for losses because of the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic under the property insurance policies issued to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant denied the Plaintiff and the proposed class business income, extra expense, and/or civil authority coverage under their respective property insurance policies resulting from or caused by the coronavirus on their premises, and the government's stay at home orders and order shutting down restaurants' on-premises businesses. The Defendants issued the Plaintiff a property insurance policy, Policy No. EPP 050 32 19. The policy period for the Insurance Policy is September 1, 2018, to September 1, 2021. The Limits for Business Income with Extra Expense is 12 Months ALS. According to the complaint, the wrongful acts involving the refusal to afford the coverages to its insureds as set forth in this Complaint were committed by a common nucleus of, employees and/or representatives of the Defendant. The conduct of the Defendant emanated, substantially occurred, and/or was ratified by the Defendant at its common corporate headquarters in the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff owns and operates a restaurant, including a bar. The Defendant is an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Eric Kennedy, Esq. Daniel P. Goetz, Esq. Brian E. Roof, Esq. WEISMAN, KENNEDY & BERRIS CO., L.P.A. 1600 Midland Building 101 Prospect Ave., W. Cleveland, OH 44115 Phone: (216)781-1111 Fax: (216)781-6747 Email: ekennedy@weismanlaw.com dgoetz@weismanlaw.com broof@weismanlaw.com - and - Frank Gallucci, Esq. PLEVIN & GALLUCCI 55 Public Square, Suite 2222 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216)861-0804 Email: fgallucci@pglawyer.com - and - W. Craig Bashein, Esq. John P. Hurst, Esq. BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A. Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 771-3239 Email: cbashein@basheinlaw.com jhurst@basheinlaw.com - and - Peter J. Flowers, Esq. MEYERS AND FLOWERS, LLC 3 North Second Street, Suite 300 St. Charles, IL 60174 Phone: 630-232-6333 Fax: 630-845-8982 Email: pjf@meyers-flowers.com DALE PHARMACY: Ruce Katz Seeks to Stop Sending of Unsolicited Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- RUCE E. KATZ, M.D., P.C., D/B/A JUVA SKIN AND LASER CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DALE PHARMACY & SURGICAL, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv-01876 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2020), seeks injunctive relief enjoining the Defendant from sending unsolicited advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant transmitted by telephone facsimile machine four unsolicited faxes to the Plaintiff. The facsimiles at issue were transmitted to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2019, August 21, 2019, September 18, 2019, and October 3, 2019. The Plaintiff had not impliedly or expressly invited or given permission to Defendant to send the Dale Faxes and had no prior relationship with the Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff offers specialized procedures in laser and cosmetic surgery. The Defendant is a medical retail store.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn Kassman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SHAWN KASSMAN, ESQ. PC 110 Carleton Avenue Central Islip, NY 11722 Telephone: 631-232-9479 Facsimile: 631-232-9489 E-mail: shawnkassman@centralisliplawyer.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 E Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: 720 213 0675 Facsimile: 303 927 0809 E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com DEL TACO: Discovery Ongoing in Former Calif. Employee's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that discovery is ongoing in the purported class action suit initiated by the company's former employee. In March 2014, a former Del Taco employee filed a purported class action complaint alleging that Del Taco has not appropriately provided meal breaks and failed to pay wages to its California hourly employees. Discovery is in process and Del Taco intends to assert all of its defenses to this threatened class action and the individual claims. Del Taco has several defenses to the action that it believes should prevent the certification of the class, as well as the potential assessment of any damages on a class basis. Del Taco said, "Legal proceedings are inherently unpredictable, and the Company is not able to predict the ultimate outcome or cost of the unresolved matter. However, based on management's current understanding of the relevant facts and circumstances, the Company does not believe that these proceedings give rise to a probable and estimable loss and should not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, operations or cash flows. Therefore, Del Taco has not recorded any amount for the claim as of December 31, 2019." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Del Taco Restaurants, Inc. operates a chain of fast food restaurants. The company consists of two separate Mexican fast-food groups, 79 Del Taco units and 36 Taco Villa restaurants. The company offers Mexican food items, such as tacos, burritos, quesadillas, burgers, French fries, and soft drinks. The company was incorporated in 1983 and is based in Atlanta, Georgia. Del Taco Restaurants operates as a subsidiary of W.R. Grace & Co. DOUYU INTERNATIONAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 26 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: DOYU). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. DouYu International Holdings Limited (NASDAQ: DOYU) Class Period: Securities purchased pursuant and/or traceable to DouYu's July 16, 2019 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 26, 2020 In its July 2019 IPO, DouYu sold about 67.4 million shares of stock at $11.50 per share, raising $774,951,765 in new capital. However, since the IPO, DouYu's stock price has plunged. On the date that this action was filed, DouYu shares closed at $6.69 per share. The complaint, filed on March 24, 2020, alleges that DouYu's Offering Documents were materially inaccurate, misleading, and/or incomplete because they failed to disclose that: (1) DouYu's risks related to its top streamers had materialized, including that: (a) a top streamer was actively misrepresenting herself on DouYu's platform; and (b) the costs associated with retaining top streamers was swelling; (2) DouYu did not ensure that all of its products were fully compliant with current regulatory requirements before those products became available on line; and (3) key interactive features of DouYu's "lucky draw" were noncompliant with current regulatory requirements, requiring DouYu to remove them from operations, which negatively impacted user engagement activity and caused disappointing financial results. For more information on the DouYu class action go to: https://bespc.com/doyu Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. Contact: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Tel: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com Web site: http://www.bespc.com/[GN] DSW RESTAURANT: Proctor Sues Over Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Arielle Proctor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DSW RESTAURANT, INCORPORATED D/B/A DOUBLE SHOE MEN'S CLUB, 3625 HIGHWAY 146, INCORPORATED and ALLEN WHEAT, an individual, Case No. 3:20-cv-00129 (S.D. Tex., April 23, 2020), is brought against the Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants 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 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. The Plaintiff began working as a dancer for the Defendants in 2017 through February 2020. The Defendants own and operate a strip club named DOUBLE SHOE MEN'S CLUB.[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 Email: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com leigh@hughesellzey.com DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Morrison Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Jill Morrison filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Jill Morrison v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-09477-DSF-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges eleven causes of action, which are: (1) Unpaid Overtime; (2) Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; (3) Unpaid Rest Periods Premium; (4) Unpaid Minimum Wages; (5) Final Wages Not Timely Paid; (6) Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; (7) Non-Compliant Wage Statements; (8) Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; (9) Unreimbursed business Expenses; (10) Violation of California business & Professions Code; and (11) Violation of California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004. The appellate case is captioned as Jill Morrison v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-55406, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant, JILL MORRISON, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act, is represented by: Michael W. Parks, Esq. Alan I. Schimmel, Esq. SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 650 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 464-5061 E-mail: mwparks@spattorneys.com Defendants-Appellees, DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Missouri Corporation, and DESIGNER BRANDS, INC., a California Corporation, are represented by: Brian Christopher Sinclair, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Five Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (714) 641-5100 E-mail: bsinclair@rutan.com EMERITUS CORP: Bailey Labor Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA BAILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. EMERITUS Corp., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. SCV0044343 (Filed Jan. 27, 2020), was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, Placer County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 22, 2020. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:20-at-00298 to the proceeding. The complaint asserts claims against the Defendants for failure to pay lawful wages owed, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods or compensation in lieu thereof, and failure to timely pay wages in violations of the Unfair Competition Law and California Labor Code. Emeritus, doing business as Emeritus Senior Living, was a provider of independent living, assisted living, Alzheimer's care, and skilled nursing for seniors living in Emeritus communities throughout the United States.[BN] Emeritus is represented by: Shannon R. Boyce, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107 Telephone: 310 553 0308 Facsimile: 310 553 5583 E-mail: sboyce@littler.com - and - Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: 925 932 2468 Facsimile: 925 946 9809 E-mail: jmann@littler.com ENSIGN US DRILLING: Ortiz Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ENSIGN U.S. DRILLING (SW), INC., Case No. 5:20-cv-00503 (W.D. Tex., April 23, 2020), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Although the Plaintiff routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, he was not paid overtime of at least one and one-half his regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. Plaintiff Ortiz was employed by the Defendant as a Rig Manager. Ensign U.S. Drilling (SW), Inc., provides drilling operations and rig management for the oil and gas industry throughout the State of Texas, the United States, and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Alan Clifton Gordon, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. John D. Garcia, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 819 North Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Phone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: cliff@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com cgordon@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com john@a2xlaw.com EQUIFAX INC: June 26 Hearing on $149MM Securities Settlement Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- In In re Equifax Inc. Securities litigation (N.D. Ga. Consolidated Case No. 1:17-cv-03463-TWT), notice of a settlement of the lawsuit has been provided to all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly‑traded Equifax Inc. ("Equifax") common stock during the period from February 25, 2016 through September 15, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and who were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"). The Lead Plaintiff in the Action, Union Asset Management Holding AG, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $149,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"). If approved, the Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on June 26, 2020 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Courtroom 2108 of the Richard B. Russell Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether, for purposes of the proposed Settlement only, the Action should be certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, Lead Plaintiff should be certified as Class Representative for the Settlement Class, and Lead Counsel should be appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class; (iii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 12, 2020 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iv) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (v) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Equifax Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91319, Seattle, WA 98111 Tel: 1-844-975-1781 E-mail: info@EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 22, 2020. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than June 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Equifax's Counsel such that they are received no later than June 5, 2020, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Defendants, or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Lead Counsel. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to: Equifax Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91319 Seattle, WA 98111 1-844-975-1781 info@EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com www.EquifaxSecuritiesLitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: James A. Harrod, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, NY 10020 1-800-380-8496 settlements@blbglaw.com [GN] EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of Exela Technologies, Inc. (NADAQ: XELA). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. Exela Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: XELA) Class Period: March 16, 2018 to March 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 22, 2020 On March 16, 2020, the Company issued a press release announcing that it would be postponing its earnings and conference call due to a delayed filing of the Company's Form 10-K for fiscal year 2019. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.0154 per share, or over 8.3%, to close at $0.17 per share on March 17, 2020. The next day, Exela issued another press release containing an update regarding their delayed filing. The Company disclosed that, in addition to not being able to timely file their Form 10-K, there was a need to restate its financial statements for fiscal years 2017 and 2018, and its interim 2019 statements. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $0.025 per share or over 14.7% to close at $0.145 per share on March 18, 2020. The complaint, filed on March 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exela's previously issued financial statements for the twelve months ended December, 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, and the quarterly statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 contained numerous accounting errors, could not be relied upon, and required restatement; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Exela's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the Exela class action go to: https://bespc.com/XELA Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Contact: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Tel: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com Web site: http://www.bespc.com/[GN] EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Announces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), a national investors rights law firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Exela Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: XELA) securities between March 16, 2018 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Exela investors have until May 22, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. If you suffered a loss on your Exela investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information here or contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, via email shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights. On March 16, 2020, Exela postponed its earnings release and conference call due to a delayed filing of the Company's fiscal 2019 annual report. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.0154 per share, or over 8%, to close at $0.17 per share on March 17, 2020, thereby injuring investors. Then, on March 17, 2020, Exela disclosed "that it will restate its financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2018 and the interim periods through September 30, 2019" to correct certain historical accounting errors. On this news, the Company's share price fell $0.025 per share, or nearly 15%, to close at $0.145 per share on March 18, 2020, thereby injuring investors further. The complaint alleges that defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Exela's previously issued financial statements for the twelve months ended December, 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, and the quarterly statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 contained numerous accounting errors, could not be relied upon, and required restatement; and (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about Exela's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. If you purchased Exela securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than May 22, 2020 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles California 90067 Tel: 310-201-9150 Toll-Free at 888-773-9224 E-mail: shareholders@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com/[GN] EXELA TECHNOLOGIES: Rosen First to File Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Exela Technologies, Inc. (XELA) between March 16, 2018 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Exela investors under the federal securities laws. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Exela's previously issued financial statements for the twelve months ended December, 31, 2017 and December 31, 2018, and the quarterly statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019 contained numerous accounting errors, could not be relied upon, and required restatement; and (2) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 22, 2020. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. To join the Exela class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1820.html Or contact: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll-free: 866-767-3653 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ [GN] FARMLAND PARTNERS: Discovery in Turner Insurance Suit Still Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Farmland Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the motion for leave by class plaintiff and the motion to adjourn class certification by the defendant in the "Turner Suit" remains pending and discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. On July 11, 2018, a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Kachmar v. Farmland Partners, Inc. (the "Kachmar Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and certain of our officers by a purported Company stockholder. The complaint alleges, among other things, that our disclosure related to the FPI Loan Program was materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 17, 2018, a second purported class action, captioned Mariconda v. Farmland Partners Inc. (the "Mariconda Action") was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging substantially identical claims as the Kachmar Action. Several purported shareholders moved to consolidate the Kachmar Action and the Mariconda Action and for appointment as Lead Plaintiff. On November 13, 2018, the plaintiff in the Kachmar action voluntarily dismissed the Kachmar Action. On December 3, 2018, the court appointed two purported stockholders of the Company, the Turner Insurance Agency, Inc. and Cecilia Turner (the "Turners"), as lead plaintiffs in the Mariconda Action. On March 11, 2019, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs and additional plaintiff Obelisk Capital Management filed an amended complaint in the Turner Action. On April 15, 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. On June 18, 2019, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the Turner Action. The defendants answered the amended complaint on July 2, 2019. On December 6, 2019, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Obelisk Capital Management from the case. In connection with Obelisk Capital Management's dismissal from the case, defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on December 10, 2019, which automatically stayed discovery in the action pending the court's determination of the motion. On December 16, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On December 27, 2019, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants filed a response opposing the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint on January 17, 2020, and filed a motion to adjourn the class certification briefing schedule in light of the discovery stay on January 29, 2020. These motions remain pending and discovery remains stayed pending decision on defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. Farmland said, "At this time, no class has been certified in the Turner Action and we do not know the amount of damages or other remedies being sought by the plaintiffs. The Company can provide no assurances as to the outcome of this litigation or provide an estimate of related expenses at this time." Farmland Partners Inc. is an internally managed real estate company that owns and seeks to acquire high-quality North American farmland and makes loans to farmers secured by farm real estate. The company is based in Denver, Colorado. FEDEX CORP: Continues to Defend Consolidated Class Suit in SDNY --------------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the quarterly period ended February 29, 2020, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 26, 2019 and July 2, 2019, FedEx and certain present and former officers were named as defendants in two putative class action securities lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints, which have been consolidated, allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to alleged misstatements or omissions in FedEx's public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other public statements during the period from September 19, 2017 to December 18, 2018. FedEx said, "We are not currently able to estimate the probability of loss or the amount or range of potential loss, if any, at this stage of the litigation." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. FedEx Corporation (FedEx) provides a portfolio of transportation, e-commerce and business services under the FedEx brand. The Company's primary operating companies include FedEx Express, the world's largest express transportation company; FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a leading North American provider of small-package ground delivery services; and FedEx Freight, Inc. ("FedEx Freight"), a leading U.S. provider of less-than-truckload ("LTL") freight services. The company is based in Memphis, Tennessee. G WILLI FOOD: Settlement in Consumer Suit Approved -------------------------------------------------- G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the Tel Aviv District Court has approved a settlement agreement in the class action suit related to an alleged breach of consumer protection laws. A lawsuit and motion to approve a class action was filed on March 26, 2018 against the Company in the Tel Aviv District Court for allegedly breaching certain consumer protection duties in connection with one of the Company's products, thereby misleading its customers. The amount claimed in the lawsuit was NIS 2.7 million. On July 16, 2019 the Tel Aviv District Court approved a settlement agreement of the matter in amounts that are not material to the Company. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports, markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd. G WILLI FOOD: Settlement in Suit v. Euro European Dairies Approved ------------------------------------------------------------------ G. Willi-Food International Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court in the class action suit filed against Euro European Dairies Ltd. (former: "Gold-Frost Ltd") and eight other companies, has approved a settlement agreement in amounts that are not material to the Company. A lawsuit and motion to approve a class action was filed on July 22, 2018 against Euro European Dairies Ltd. (former: "Gold-Frost Ltd") and eight other companies in the Jerusalem District Court for allegedly not complying with the food labelling regulations in connection with one of the Company’s products, thereby misleading consumers. At this stage, the amount claimed in the lawsuit in NIS 4 million. On April 17, 2019, the court approved a settlement agreement in amounts that are not material to the Company. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. develops, imports, exports, markets, and distributes various food products worldwide. The company was formerly known as G. Willi-Food Ltd. and changed its name to G. Willi-Food International Ltd. in June 1996. The company was founded in 1994 and is headquartered in Yavne, Israel. G. Willi-Food International Ltd. is a subsidiary of Willi-Food Investments Ltd. GENERAL REVENUE: Thompson Appeals S.D. Ohio Ruling to Sixth Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rachel M. Thompson filed an appeal from a court ruling in her lawsuit styled RACHEL M. THOMPSON, On behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. GENERAL REVENUE CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-734, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Court George C. Smith entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification of two classes. The Court said, "the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Having found that Plaintiff failed to satisfy all four requirements found in [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 23(a), the Court need not undergo an analysis of Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements." The Plaintiff moves for certification of two classes pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(3), 23(c)(4) and 23(c)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to certain issues under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The proposed classes are: * CLASS 1 (As to the Issues of FDCPA Liability and Statutory Damages): All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02. Specifically excepted from this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were not incurred for personal, family or household purposes; and * CLASS 2 (As to the Issue of Disgorgement (or Payment Reapplication) of "Collection Costs" Paid): All persons to whom Defendant mailed at least one written communication dated July 27, 2014 to the present; to collect a non-tax debt owed to the State of Ohio and/or its related entities, which debt was referred to Defendant for collection by the Ohio Attorney General ("OAG") pursuant to a Third Party Collection Vendor Agreement; and in which Defendant sought to recover "collection costs" pursuant to (former) Ohio Revised Code Sections 109.081 and 131.02; and after which resulted in any payment from such persons of any funds applied to "collection costs". Specifically excepted from this Class are all persons to whom Defendant mailed written communications relating to any accounts placed with Defendant for collection of debts incurred after April 5, 2017, and/or for all accounts placed with Defendant for debts that were not incurred for personal, family or household purposes. The appellate case is captioned as RACHEL M. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. GENERAL REVENUE CORP., Respondent, Case No. 20-303, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner RACHEL M. THOMPSON is represented by: James E. Nobile, Esq. NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., L.P.A. 4876 Cemetery Road Hilliard, OH 43026 Telephone: (614) 529-8600 Facsimile: (614) 529-8565 Email: jenobile@ntlegal.com GLOBAL PAYMENTS: Blake Hits Data Breach Over Credit Card Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian H. Blake and Catherine Harrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Global Payments Inc. and ACTIVE Network, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-00487, (N.D. Ga., April 13, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs together with other relief resulting from negligence, breach of express and implied contract, unjust enrichment and for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Records Act. Global Payments is a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions. Blue Bear is its technology partner for schools using a software platform and payment card environment. Blue Bear's account was compromised in a massive security breach of that occurred between October 1, 2019 and November 13, 2019 exposing usernames and passwords of its users. Blake used his credit card to pay his child's school fees via the Blue Bear software platform and payment card environment.[BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Andrea Hirsch, Esq. THE HIRSCH LAW FIRM 230 Peachtree Street, Suite 2260 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 487-6552 Facsimile: (678) 541-9356 Email: andrea@thehirschlawfirm.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 10728 Lindbrook Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE ELLERY 320 South Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telefax: (918) 588-3400 Email: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com GOLDEN STAR: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Golden Star Resources Ltd. (NYSE: GSS) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2020. Contact: Brian Schall The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067, Tel: 310-301-3335 Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/ E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Golden Star failed to gather sufficient geological data on its Prestea mine. The Company's operations suffered from deficiencies in mining practices including inaccurate long hole drilling and blasting at Prestea. The Company's increased tonnage was at a much lower grade than ideal, forcing it to supplement production with oxide material. The Company's dilution led to lower mining rates at Prestea. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Golden Star, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. Contacts The Schall Law Firm Brian Schall, Esq. Office: 310-301-3335 E-mail: info@schallfirm.com Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/[GN] GOLDEN STAR: Thornton Law Alerts Shareholders to Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Golden Star Resources, Ltd. on behalf of GSS shareholders (GSS). Investors who purchased at least 1,000 shares of GSS stock between February 20, 2019 and July 30, 2019 that are interested to serve as a lead plaintiff are encouraged to visit https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/GSS Shareholders may also contact Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class member. FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/GSS Interested GSS shareholders have until June 1, 2020 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class member. Golden Star Resources, Ltd. is a Canadian gold-mining company. The organization has two gold mines in Ghana, West Africa. The Complaint alleges that Golden Star Resources failed to disclose that: (1) it had insufficient geological and geotechnical data in its Prestea mine; (2) the Company had experienced deficiencies in its operating practices and mining methods including inaccurate long hole drilling and blasting in its Prestea mine; (3) the Company did not have the mining flexibility and more measured resources to ensure higher reserve grade; (4) the Company had experienced increased tonnage at much lower grade where it had to supplement some of the production with oxide material; and that (5) the Company had excessive dilution which drove lower mining rates at the Prestea mine. The lawsuit alleges that when the true details entered the market, investors suffered damages. Investors who are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff and who purchased at least 1,000 shares of GSS stock (GSS) are encouraged to contact the Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team at http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/GSS,by email at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or calling 617-531-3917 to discuss the lead plaintiff process. FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/GSS Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of shareholders. Contact: Thornton Law Firm LLP State Street Financial Center 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 [GN] HACKBARTH DELIVERY: Horne Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Thoreausa Horne, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HACKBARTH DELIVERY SERVICE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-cv-03109, (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2020), seeks injunctive relief, statutory and treble damages for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Hackbarth offers transportation, logistics, warehousing and distribution services throughout the country where Horne worked as a driver through a third-party company called Subcontracting Concepts, LLC which contracts with Hackbarth's drivers and is the payroll company which pays the drivers on behalf of Hackbarth. Horne claims that she was classified as an independent contractor, thus denied the basic benefits of being an employee including overtime despite working in excess of 40 hours per workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Martin R. Jelliffe, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC 450 Old Canton Road, Suite 200 ackson, MI 39211 Telephone: (601) 503-1676 Facsimile: (601) 503-1625 E-mail: mjelliffe@forthepeople.com HD SUPPLY: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 21 ------------------------------------------------------------- HD Supply Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2020, that the trial court has scheduled a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement of a securities class action for July 21, 2020. On July 10, 2017 and August 8, 2017, stockholders filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that HD Supply and certain senior members of its management, made certain false or misleading public statements in violation of the federal securities laws between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. Subsequently, the two securities cases were consolidated, and, on November 16, 2017, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the Court filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the securities litigation defendants on behalf of all persons other than the securities litigation defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 9, 2016 and June 5, 2017, inclusive. The Amended Complaint alleges that the securities litigation defendants made certain false or misleading public statements, primarily relating to the Company's progress in addressing certain supply chain disruption issues encountered in the Company's Facilities Maintenance business unit. The Amended Complaint asserts claims against the securities litigation defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, and seeks class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as unspecified monetary damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and other costs. On September 19, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part the securities litigation defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 30, 2020, the parties executed a written stipulation and agreement to settle the litigation for a payment of $50 million, subject to court approval. On February 21, 2020, the Court approved the settlement on a preliminary basis and scheduled a final approval hearing for July 21, 2020. HD Supply said, "The full settlement amount is covered under the Company's insurance policies. The Company and individual defendants continue to dispute the allegations in the complaints, and the settlement is without any admission of the allegations in the complaints." HD Supply Holdings, Inc. is an industrial distributor in North America. The Company's segments include Facilities Maintenance, Construction & Industrial-White Cap, and Corporate. It serves contractors, government entities, maintenance professionals, home builders and industrial businesses. The company is based in Atlanta, Georgia. HEAVEN SENT PIZZA: Martin Seeks Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Martin, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. HEAVEN SENT PIZZA, LLC d/b/a Domino's Pizza, and RONALD L. RUSSEK, individually, Case No. 6:20-cv-00312 (W.D. Tex., April 23, 2020), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed to the Plaintiff and other delivery drivers employed by the Defendants at its Dominos stores. The Defendants employ delivery drivers, who use their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, the Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal and state minimum wage during some or all workweeks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from 2017 to 2019 as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Dominos store. The Defendants operate numerous Dominos franchise stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Forester, Esq. D. Matthew Haynie, Esq. Meredith Black Mathews, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: (214) 210-2100 Fax: (214) 346-5909 INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Kessler Topaz Reminds of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP reminds investors that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (INO) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired Inovio common stock between February 14, 2020 and March 9, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Important Deadline: Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Inovio common stock during the Class Period may, no later than May 12, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information or to learn how to participate in this litigation please click https://www.ktmc.com/inovio-pharmaceuticals-securities-class-action?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=inovio. According to the complaint, Inovio is a biotechnology company focused on rapidly bringing to market precisely designed DNA medicines to treat, cure and/or protect people from infectious diseases. The worldwide outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has become a global "pandemic" due to its extraordinary speed and scale of transmission. According to the World Health Organization ("WHO") Director-General, the WHO is deeply concerned by both the alarming levels of spread and severity of COVID-19. During the Class Period, the defendants capitalized on widespread COVID-19 fears by falsely claiming that Inovio had developed a vaccine for COVID-19. The Class Period commences on February 14, 2020, when Inovio Chief Executive Officer, J. Joseph Kim ("Kim"), appeared on Fox Business News with Neal Cavuto, and stated that Inovio had developed a COVID-19 vaccine "in a matter of about three hours once we had the DNA sequence from the virus" and "our goal is to start phase one human testing in the U.S. early this summer." In response, Inovio's stock price rose more than 10% over the next few trading days. Two weeks later, following a well-publicized March 2, 2020 meeting with President Donald J. Trump to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak, Kim again claimed that Inovio had developed a COVID-19 vaccine, stating "we were able to fully construct our vaccine within three hours . . . . Our plan is to start [U.S. based COVID-19 trials] in April of this year." The market responded favorably to Kim's statement and Inovio's stock price more than quadrupled from $4.28 per share on February 28, 2020, and continued to increase in the following weeks, reaching an intra-day high of $19.36 on March 9, 2020. According to the complaint, on March 9, 2020, before trading commenced, Citron Research exposed the defendants' misstatements, calling for an SEC investigation into Inovio's "ludicrous and dangerous claim that they designed a [COVID-19] vaccine in 3 hours." Following this news, Inovio's stock price plummeted from its March 9 opening price of $18.72 per share to close at $9.83. On March 10, 2020, Inovio's stock price fell from its $9.30 per share opening price to close at $5.70 per share. The two-day drop wiped out approximately $643 million in market capitalization for Inovio, marking a 71% decline from its Class Period high. In a message to shareholders that same day, Inovio attempted to blunt the Citron revelations, but only highlighted its own misstatements, admitting that it had not developed a COVID-19 vaccine but rather had merely "designed a vaccine construct" - i.e., a precursor for a vaccine - and that it believed it had a "viable approach to address the COVID-19 outbreak." The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants falsely: (1) described their product as a fully completed vaccine when it was nothing of the sort; (2) claimed they had developed the vaccine in a matter of hours, which is a scientific impossibility; and (3) stated that they would be able to begin human trials in April 2020 when they had no reason to believe that they would have the necessary regulatory approvals to do so. If you wish to discuss this securities fraud class action lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to this litigation, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (James Maro, Jr., Esq. or Adrienne Bell, Esq.) at (844) 877-9500 (toll free) or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at info@ktmc.com. Inovio investors may, no later than May 12, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country involving securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, please visit www.ktmc.com. Contact: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP James Maro, Jr., Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Toll Free: (844) 877-9500 Tel: (610) 667-7706 E-mail: info@ktmc.com [GN] INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Thornton Law Notes of May 12 Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Inovio Pharmaceuticals on behalf of Inovio investors (INO). Shareholders who purchased at least 1,000 shares of INO stock between February 14, 2020 and March 9, 2020 and are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff are encouraged to contact the Thornton Law Firm LLP by visiting https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/INO. Shareholders may also contact the Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class member. FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/INO. Interested INO shareholders have until May 12, 2020 to apply to be lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants capitalized on widespread COVID-19 fears by falsely claiming that Inovio Pharmaceuticals, Inc. had developed a vaccine for COVID-19. The suit alleges that on February 14, 2020, Inovio CEO J. Joseph Kim appeared on Fox Business News and stated that Inovio had developed a COVID-19 vaccine. It is alleged that two weeks later, following a well-publicized March 2, 2020 meeting with President Trump to discuss the COVID-19 outbreak, Defendant Kim again claimed that Inovio had developed a COVID-19 vaccine. The market allegedly responded favorably to Kim's statement, and Inovio's stock price more than quadrupled from $4.28 per share on February 28, 2020, and continued to increase in the following weeks, reaching an intra-day high of $19.36 on March 9, 2020. The lawsuit alleges that Inovio had not developed a COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit states that on March 9, 2020, before trading commenced, Citron Research exposed Defendants' misstatements, calling for an SEC investigation into the Company's claim. In response, Inovio's stock price plummeted from its March 9 opening price of $18.72 per share to close at $9.83. The following day, March 10, 2020, Inovio's stock price fell from its $9.30 per share opening price to close at $5.70 per share. If you have purchased at least 1,000 shares of INO stock (INO), please contact the Thornton Law Firm's shareholder rights team at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917 to discuss the lead plaintiff process. FOR MORE INFORMATION: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/INO Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of shareholders. Contact: Thornton Law Firm State Street Financial Center 1 Lincoln St. Boston, MA 02111 https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/INO [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Deceives PPP Loan Applicants, Hyde-Edwards Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- HYDE-EDWARDS SALON & SPA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. 3:20-cv-00762-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., April 22, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for their unlawful acts and intentional practices of making false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions concerning their processing of economic assistance via the Federal Paycheck Protection Program, by engaging in conduct prohibited by the California False Advertising Law and California Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants made false, misleading, and deceptive material statements and omissions to consumers and small business owners, who were in need of financial relief and assistance as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic that they would administer, process, and grant loans in accordance with applicable Small Business Administration regulations. Specifically, the Plaintiff says, the Defendants knew that all loans through the PPP were vital to the Plaintiff and the Class members and critically time-sensitive given that the total amount of PPP funds were limited and the amount the Defendants could loan pursuant to the PPP was capped. Defendants, as an approved lender agreed to comply with all applicable rules, requirements and guidelines. The Defendants, however, intentionally ignored the equitable and critical guideline that loans would be processed on a "first come, first served" basis as required by the PPP. Instead, in order to protect their financial gains, the Defendants prioritized the processing of larger loans over smaller loans and loans for which Defendants risked greater exposure in the event of a business failure over loans where the risk exposure was less, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. Founded in 2007, the Plaintiff is a full service salon and spa, offering hair and makeup services, as well as manicures, pedicures, facials, chemical peels, and waxing. The Defendants are multinational financial services companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (619) 489-0300 E-mail: bgaldston@bm.net - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 South Gay Street, Suite 100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. Patrick M. Wallace, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON LLP 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@whitfieldbryson.com scott@whitfieldbryson.com pat@whitfieldbryson.com JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Faces Haideri Suit Over Buyout by Super ROI ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMAL HAIDERI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. JUMEI INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LIMITED, LEO OU CHEN, ZHENQUAN REN, SEAN SHAO, MANG SU, and ADAM J. ZHAO, Case No. 3:20-cv-02751 (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2020), alleges that the Defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with Defendant Chen's recent buyout of Jumei through his affiliates Super ROI Global Holding Limited and Jumei Investment Holding Limited, the Purchaser. The case is a class action brought on behalf of former Jumei stockholders against Jumei and the members of its Board of Directors. On February 25, 2020, Jumei and Super ROI issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated February 25, 2020 to sell Jumei to Super ROI through a tender offer and subsequent short-form merger. Under the Merger Agreement, Chen, who already controlled 44.6% of the Company's shares and 88.9% of the voting power, would acquire the rest of Jumei's shares for $2.00 per share in cash for each Class A Ordinary Share, which equated to $20.00 per each American Depository Share (ADS). The Buyout valued Jumei's equity value at approximately $229 million. On February 26, 2020, Super ROI and Purchaser commenced the tender offer, which expired on April 8, 2020. Chen, Super ROI, and Purchaser completed the Buyout on April 14, 2020, and Jumei is no longer an independent company. On February 26, 2020, Jumei filed a Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Recommendation Statement, which recommends that Jumei stockholders tender their shares pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, omits or misrepresents material information concerning Jumei's financial projections, relied upon by Jumei's financial advisor, Houlihan Lokey Limited, and the data and inputs underlying the financial valuation exercises that purportedly support the so-called "fairness opinion" provided by Houlihan, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the Buyout is the result of an unfair process not stemming from the Board's concern for the best interest of the stockholders, but rather from the Board's desire to avoid competitive bidding in order to purchase the Company at a discounted price, providing the Company's stockholders with inadequate consideration. He asserts that the Buyout price is inadequate and undervalues the Company. He adds that the Defendants have also agreed to unreasonable deal-protection devices that unfairly favor Super ROI and discourage potential bidders from submitting a superior offer for the Company. The Plaintiff alleges that the Buyout is designed to unlawfully divest Jumei stockholders of the Company's valuable assets without fully disclosing all material information regarding the Buyout to Company stockholders. Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendants accountable. The Plaintiff was a Jumei stockholder. Jumei is a business supplies and equipment company. Defendant Chen is the founder and has served as the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer since the Company's inception. Super ROI Global is a privately owned company organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands beneficially owned by Defendant Chen through a trust. The Purchaser is a wholly owned subsidiary of Super ROI with limited liability under the laws of the Cayman Islands and was formed for the sole purpose of engaging in the Buyout.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Scott Holleman, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 101 California Street, Suite 2710 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 365-7149 Facsimile: (212) 214-0506 E-mail: holleman@bespc.com fortunato@bespc.com LEGG MASON: Gordon Sues Over Franklin Resources Merger Deal ----------------------------------------------------------- Philip Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Legg Mason, Inc., Joseph A. Sullivan, Carol Anthony Davidson, Robert E. Angelica, Edward P. Garden, Michelle J. Goldberg, Stephen C. Hooley, John V. Murphy, Nelson Peltz and Alison A. Quirk, Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-02941 (S.D. N.Y., April 9, 2020), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger between Legg Mason and Franklin Resources, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger, rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, Legg Mason shareholders stand to receive $50.00 in cash for each share of Legg Mason stock they own. The complaint alleges that the registration statement lacked the financial projections for Legg Mason in recommending that its shareholders vote in favor of the merger; including the summary of certain valuation analyses conducted by Legg Mason's financial advisors, PJT Partners LP and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, in support of their opinion that the merger is fair to shareholders. Legg Mason is a global asset management firm that operates through independent asset management subsidiaries providing investment management and related products and services to institutional and individual clients, company-sponsored mutual funds and other investment vehicles. Franklin Resources, Inc. is a global investment management organization operating as Franklin Templeton. Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: 2017 COI Rate Litigation Still Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a consolidated class action suit entitled, In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150. In re: Lincoln National 2017 COI Rate Litigation, Master File No. 2:17-cv-04150 is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order of the court in March 2018. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by former Jefferson-Pilot (now The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2017. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyholders and seek damages on their behalf. The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: COI Litigation in Pennsylvania Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a class action suit in Pennsylvania entitled, In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation. In re: Lincoln National COI Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Master File No. 2:16-cv-06605-GJP, is a consolidated litigation matter related to multiple putative class action filings that were consolidated by an order dated March 20, 2017. In addition to consolidating a number of existing matters, the order also covers any future cases filed in the same district related to the same subject matter. Plaintiffs own universal life insurance policies originally issued by Jefferson-Pilot (now LNL). Plaintiffs allege that LNL and LNC breached the terms of policyholders' contracts by increasing non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates beginning in 2016. Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of policyowners and seek damages on their behalf. The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: TVPX ARS' Suit in Pennsylvania Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative class action suit initiated by TVPX ARS Inc., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. TVPX ARS INC., as Securities Intermediary for Consolidated Wealth Management, LTD. v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:18-cv-02989, is a putative class action that was filed on July 17, 2018. Plaintiff alleges that Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL) charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and variable universal life policyholders who own policies issued by Lincoln National Life Insurance Company (LNL) or its predecessors containing non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such policyholders. The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Unit Still Defends Hanks Class Suit in NY ----------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York continues to defend a class action suit in New York. Hanks v. The Lincoln Life and Annuity Company of New York ("LLANY") and Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company ("Voya"), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:16-cv-6399, is a putative class action that was served on LLANY on August 12, 2016. Plaintiff owns a universal life policy originally issued by Aetna (now Voya) and alleges that (i) Voya breached the terms of the policy when it increased non-guaranteed cost of insurance rates on Plaintiff’s policy; and (ii) LLANY, as reinsurer and administrator of Plaintiff's policy, engaged in wrongful conduct related to the cost of insurance increase and was unjustly enriched as a result. Plaintiff seeks to represent all owners of Aetna life insurance policies that were subject to non-guaranteed cost of insurance rate increases in 2016 and seeks damages on their behalf. On March 13, 2019, the court issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion for class certification for the breach of contract claim and denying such motion with respect to the unjust enrichment claim against LLANY, and, on September 12, 2019, the court issued an order approving the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with respect to the unjust enrichment claim and dismissed LLANY as a defendant in the case. In light of LLANY's role as reinsurer and administrator under the 1998 coinsurance agreement with Aetna (now Voya), and of the parties' rights and obligations thereunder, LLANY continues to be actively engaged in the vigorous defense of this action. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana LINCOLN NATIONAL: Vida Longevity Fund Suit v. LLANY Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the class action suit entitled, Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), is still ongoing. Vida Longevity Fund, LP v. Lincoln Life & Annuity Company of New York (LLANY), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:19-cv-06004, is a putative class action that was filed on June 27, 2019. Plaintiff alleges that LLANY charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than was permitted by the policies. Plaintiff seeks to represent all current and former owners of universal life (including variable universal life) policies who own or owned policies issued by LLANY and its predecessors in interest that were in force at any time on or after June 27, 2013, and which contain non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to those of Plaintiff's policies. Plaintiff also seeks to represent a sub-class of such policyholders who own or owned "life insurance policies issued in the State of New York." Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of the policyholder class and sub-class. The Lincoln said, "We are vigorously defending this matter." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities, accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group benefits, individual and group retirement plans. Lincoln National Life Insurance serves customers in the United States. The company is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana. LUCKIN COFFEE: Schall Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Luckin Coffee Inc. for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities (1) from May 17, 2019 through April 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"); (2) in or traceable to the Company's public offering of ADSs conducted on or around May 17, 2019 (the "IPO"); and/or (3) in or traceable to the Company's public offering of ADSs conducted on or around January 10, 2020 (the "2020 Offering"), are encouraged to contact the firm before April 13, 2020. If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click here to participate. We also encourage you to contact: Brian Schall THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (424) 303-1964 Web site: http:www.schallfirm.com/ E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com/ The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Luckin inflated various financial performance metrics including per-store per-day sales, net selling price per item, advertising expense, and revenue contribution form "other products." The Company overstated its financial health using unreliable financial statements based on the inflated performance figures. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Luckin, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] LUCKIN COFFEE: Wolf Haldenstein Investigating Serious New Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces it is investigating serious and disturbing securities class action claims on behalf of shareholders of the American Depositary Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") of Luckin Coffee, Inc. (NASDAQ: LK) resulting from allegations that Luckin Coffee may have issued materially false financial statements. All investors who purchased ADSs of Luckin Coffee, Inc. and incurred losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. Luckin Coffee purported to be one of China's fastest-growing coffee retailers, in terms of number of stores and cups of coffee sold. According to its public filings with the SEC, Luckin Coffee pioneered a technology-driven new retail model to provide coffee, tea and other products with high quality, high affordability and high convenience to customers. This morning before the opening of trading, a Special Committee brought to the attention of Luckin Coffee's Board of Directors information indicating that, beginning in the second quarter of 2019, Mr. Jian Liu, the chief operating officer and a director of the Company, and several employees reporting to him, had engaged in certain misconduct, including fabricating certain transactions. The Special Committee recommended certain interim remedial measures, including the suspension of Mr. Jian Liu and such employees implicated in the misconduct and the suspension and termination of contracts and dealings with the parties involved in the identified fabricated transactions. The Board accepted the Special Committee's recommendations and implemented them with respect to the currently identified individuals and parties involved in the fabricated transactions. The information identified at this preliminary stage of the internal investigation indicates that the aggregate sales amount associated with the fabricated transactions from the second quarter of 2019 to the fourth quarter of 2019 amounted to approximately $300 million US dollars. On this news, Luckin Coffee ADSs traded as low as $4.90 per ADS after opening for trading. Luckin Coffee traded as high as $51.38 per ADS as recently as January 17, 2020. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Kevin Cooper, Esq. Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis E-mail: gstone@whafh.com kcooper@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 [GN] LUSH INC: Smith Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages Under Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- LAUREN SMITH and ELESHA JEFFERSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LUSH, INC., WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS LUSH FOODS, INC. DBA FARMSTEAD and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-20-584125 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 10, 2020), asserts claims against the Defendants for unfair business practices and violations of the California Labor Code by failing to pay for all hours worked, to pay overtime wages, and to provide rest and meal periods. The Plaintiffs seek damages, restitution, statutory penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief, including an equitable accounting, attorneys' fees and costs of suit. Ms. Smith was employed by Farmstead in California as a non-exempt employee from January 11, 2017, to May 2019. Mr. Jefferson worked as a driver for Farmstead in California from November 2018 to April 14, 2020. Lush provides on-demand grocery shopping and grocery delivery services through a mobile phone application and website.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cristina Molteni, Esq. MOLTENI EMPLOYMENT LAW 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: 415 762-0270 Facsimile: 415 762-0271 E-mail: cmolteni@moltenilaw.com - and - David Ratner, Esq. Shelley Molineaux, Esq. RATNER MOLINEAUX LLP 1990 N. California Boulevard, Suite 20 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: 925 393-7511 Facsimile: 925 891-3818 LYFT INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in Rogers Employment Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff John Rogers filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in his lawsuit styled John Rogers, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-01938-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit arises from the Defendant's failure to pay sick leave to the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated as required by California law. The Defendant does not pay its drivers, including the Plaintiff, for sick leave as required by the law as it misclassified them as independent contractors rather than its employees. According to the complaint, the harm extends not only to drivers but to the public as well, particularly as the international community is facing a worldwide crisis in the spread of COVID-19. The failure of the Defendant to comply with California law is, therefore, creating an immediate danger as Lyft drivers, including the Plaintiff, will continue working and risk exposing hundreds of drivers, who enter their car on a weekly basis to this deadly disease, faced with the choice of staying home without pay and risking losing their access to their livelihood including housing, food, and other necessities of living. The appellate case is captioned as John Rogers, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 20-15689, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JOHN ROGERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Anne Kramer, Esq. Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by: Rachael E. Meny, Esq. Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Email: rmeny@keker.com epaige@keker.com rslaughter@keker.com – and – Dane Paul Shikman, Esq. Rohit K. Singla, Esq. Jeffrey Y. Wu, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 MAGIC MOUNTAIN: Rezai-Hariri Sues Over Monthly Membership Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- SHAHRIYAR REZAI-HARIRI, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly situated v. MAGIC MOUNTAIN LLC; PARK MANAGEMENT CORP. dba SIX FLAGS DISCOVERY KINGDOM; SIX FLAGS THEME PARKS INC.; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 8:20-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2020), arises from the Defendants' decision to keep charging all of their customers monthly membership fees while prohibiting access to Six Flags Magic Mountain as the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, rages throughout the world and the United States economy has gone into a deep recession. On March 13, 2020, the Defendants announced that they were closing Six Flags Magic Mountain and Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. However, the Plaintiff contends, unlike their competitors in the industry, the Defendants continued charging their thousands of customers monthly fees--at full price. The Defendants are able to unilaterally charge their customers monthly fees without their consent, as it is in possession of their customers' debit and credit card information. Thus, the Defendants have made the deliberate decision to bilk their customers out of untold sums per months while their customers do not have access to ther Defendants' parks, says the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the sole reason the Defendants' customers pay monthly membership fees is to have access to parks like Six Flags Magic Mountain, which is advertised to be available seven days a week. Now, the Defendants are charging their customers full price while denying their customers all access to all of their Defendants' parks. The Plaintiff is currently subscribed to MAGIC MOUNTAIN'S "Season Pass" program at a rate of $6.95 per month. The Defendants are doing business in recreation and entertainment industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daryoosh Khashayar, Esq. Taylor Marks, Esq. KHASHAYAR LAW GROUP 12636 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 400 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 509-1550 Facsimile: (858) 509-1551 E-mail: DARYOOSH@MYSDLAWYERS.COM MAIDEN HOLDINGS: New Jersey Securities Class Action Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has not yet been served with an amended complaint in the class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, but believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself. A putative class action complaint was filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019, alleging that Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) by making misrepresentations about the Company and its business, including the Company's risk management and underwriting policies and practices. Plaintiffs further claim that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common shares, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the Company's stock price fell, causing Plaintiffs to incur losses. Maiden said, "There exist and the Company expects additional lawsuits to be filed against the Company, its subsidiaries and its respective officers due to the diminution in value of our securities as a result of our operating results and financial condition. It is currently uncertain as to the effect of such litigation on our business, operating results and financial conditions." No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. Maiden Holdings, Ltd. is a Bermuda-based holding company, previously focused on serving the needs of regional and specialty insurers in the United States ("U.S."), Europe and select other global markets. The company operates internationally providing branded auto and credit life insurance products through insurer partners to retail clients in the EU and other global markets through Maiden Global Holdings, Ltd. ("Maiden Global") and its subsidiaries. The company is based in Pembroke, Bermuda. MANSCAPED LLC: Scanlon Sues Over Automated Telemarketing Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- David Scanlon, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. MANSCAPED, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-10795 (D. Mass., April 23, 2020), arises from a campaign by the Defendant to market its services through the use of automated telemarketing calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant's telemarketer sent multiple calls to residential telephone numbers that are registered on the National Do Not Call List (hereafter "NDNC"), which is a separate and additional violation of the TCPA, says the complaint. The recipients of these illegal calls, which include the Plaintiff and the proposed classes, are entitled to damages under the TCPA. At no point has the Plaintiff sought out or solicited information regarding the Defendant's services. The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of Massachusetts. Manscaped LLC is a California limited liability company.[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 - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Phone: (508) 655-1415 Email: mmccue@massattorneys.net - and - Alex M. Washkowitz, Esq. Jeremy Cohen, Esq. CW LAW GROUP, P.C. 188 Oaks Road Framingham, MA 01701 Email: alex@cwlawgrouppc.com - and – Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 738-7080 Email: ted@broderick-law.com MESA AIR: June 1 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion ------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Mesa Air Group, Inc. ("Mesa" or the Company") (NASDAQ: MESA) securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's August 2018 initial public offering (the "IPO" or "Offering"). Mesa investors have until June 1, 2020 to file a lead plaintiff motion. Investors suffering losses on their Mesa investments are encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com. On August 9, 2018, Mesa conducted its initial public offering ("IPO") in which it sold approximately 11 million shares of common stock for $12.00 per share. On May 10, 2019, Mesa's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") revealed that over the last 18 months, well before the IPO, Mesa had been "hamstrung by the fact that we had expanded a lot... maintenance became more difficult in terms of qualified maintenance people." Then on August 9, 2019, Mesa's CEO stated that Mesa "did not meet the performance criteria" under its contract with American Airlines, Inc. The Company's shares have consistently traded below the IPO price, closing as low as $2.70 per share on March 19, 2020. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Mesa's operational performance was poor and below industry standards; (2) that Mesa had a shortage of qualified mechanics and maintenance personnel; (3) that Mesa had an inadequate number of spare aircraft and parts; (4) that Mesa did not have a strong track record of reliable performance; (5) that then-existing "risks" had already materialized; (6) that Mesa knew of undisclosed adverse trends and uncertainties at the time of the IPO; and (7) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you purchased Mesa securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esquire Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Toll-free: (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ [GN] MIMEDX GROUP: Continues to Defend Carpenters Pension Fund Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- MiMedx Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, that the company remains a defendant in a consolidated class action suit spearheaded by the Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois. On January 16, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia entered an order consolidating two purported securities class actions (MacPhee v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 23, 2018 and Kline v. MiMedx Group, Inc., et al. filed February 26, 2018). The order also appointed Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois as lead plaintiff. On May 1, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming as defendants the Company, Michael J. Senken, Parker H. Petit, William C. Taylor, Christopher M. Cashman and Cherry Bekaert & Holland LLP. The amended complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. It asserted a class period of March 7, 2013 through June 29, 2018. Following the filing of motions to dismiss by the various defendants, the lead plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff has until March 30, 2020 to file its amended complaint. MiMedx Group, Inc. is an industry leader in advanced wound care and an emerging therapeutic biologics company, developing and distributing placental tissue allografts with patent-protected processes for multiple sectors of healthcare. The company is based in Marietta, Georgia. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: HomeServices Appeals Ruling in Sitzer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant HomeServices of America, Inc., filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Joshua Sitzer, et al. v. National Assoc. of Realtors, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00332-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Kansas City. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleges violation of federal antitrust laws and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to charge the home sellers an artificially-inflated broker's fee. On August 22, 2019, the Court denied the Defendants' motions to transfer the Sitzer matter to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and on October 16, 2019, denied the motions to dismiss this litigation filed respectively by NAR and the Company (together with the other named brokerage/franchisor defendants). The appellate case is captioned as Joshua Sitzer, et al. v. National Assoc. of Realtors, et al., Case No. 20-1779, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Joshua Sitzer, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Erin D. Lawrence, Esq. Jeremy Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416 Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 Email: brandon@boulware-law.com erin@boulware-law.com jeremy@boulware-law.com – and – Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Amy R. Jackson, Esq. Courtney Marie Stout, Esq. WILLIAMS & DIRKS Suite 2600, 1100 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 945-7135 Email: matt@williamsdirks.com dirks@williamsdirks.com amy@williamsdirks.com cstout@williamdirks.com Defendants-Appellants HomeServices of America, Inc., et al., are represented by: Matthew B. Barr, Esq. Matthew Ciulla, Esq. Karoline E. Jackson, Esq. Robert D. MacGill, Esq. BARNES & THORNBURG 1313 Merchants Bank Building 11 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-0000 Telephone: (317) 450-4096 – and – Brian Christopher Fries LATHROP GPM LLP Suite 2200, 2345 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108-0000 Telephone: (816) 292-2000 – and – Jennifer M. Keas, Esq. Jay Norman Varon, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER 3000 K Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20007-5109 Telephone: (202) 672-5380 NATURAL ALTERNATIVES: Stein Balks at Approval of Incentive Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- SHIVA STEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JOE E. DAVIS, ALAN G. DUNN, MICHAEL E. FORTIN, ALAN J. LANE, MARK A. LEDOUX, LAURA K. MATHERLY, LEE G. WELDON and KENNETH E. WOLF, Defendants, and NATURAL ALTERNATIVES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2020-0301 (Del. Ch., April 22, 2020), alleges breach of fiduciary duties against NAI's Board of Directors in connection with their solicitation of stockholder approval of the Natural Alternatives International, Inc. 2019 Omnibus Incentive Plan. The Plaintiff also asserts derivative claims to recover for the Company the value of certain equity compensation ostensibly issued pursuant to the 2019 Plan, which was never approved by stockholders. The Plaintiff contends that the Board solicited stockholder approval of the 2019 Plan through issuance of a proxy statement filed by NAI with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 28, 2019, in which it recommended that stockholders vote in favor of approving the 2019 Plan. In the 2019 Proxy, the Company properly noted that a "proxy marked 'ABSTAIN' or 'WITHHOLD' will have the same effect as a vote 'AGAINST'" approval of the 2019 Plan. When it came time to count the votes, however, the Company disregarded its own acknowledgment of how abstentions are counted under Delaware law. He adds that in a Form 8-K Current Report which NAI filed with the SEC on December 11, 2019, the Company disclosed that the sum of "Abstentions" and "Votes Against" was, in fact, greater than the total number of "Votes for" approval of the 2019 Plan. Nevertheless, the Company claimed that "the Omnibus Incentive Plan was approved by the stockholders at the annual meeting." The Plaintiff is, and has continuously been, a NAI stockholder. NAI is an American company based in San Marcos, California, which manufactures nutritional supplements, such as Juice Plus.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Fields, Esq. Christopher J. Kupka, Esq. Samir Shukurov, Esq. FIELDS KUPKA & SHUKUROV LLP 1370 Broadway, 5th Floor, #5100 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: 212.231.1500 Facsimile: 646.851.0076 E-mail: wfields@fksfirm.com ckupka@fksfirm.com sshukurov@fksfirm.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212 661 1100 Facsimile: 917 463 1044 E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com sadams@pomlaw.com - and - P. Bradford DeLeeuw, Esq. DELEEUW LAW LLC 1301 Walnut Green Road Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: 302.274.2180 Facsimile: 302.351.6905 E-mail: brad@deleeuwlaw.com NEW YORK SPORTS CLUB: Faces Class Action for Fees Despite Shutdown ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Daily Mail UK reports that New York Sports Club has been hit with a class action lawsuit after charging all 600,000 members despite government shutdown - as angry customers share that the gym is even making them pay for personal trainers. According to the report, New York Sports Club, which has more than 600,000 members, withdrew fees for the month even though their gyms have been shuttered since March 15. Members have been forced to continue handing over their payments while many others have frozen accounts until the pandemic is over. It comes at a time when millions across the country have lost their jobs and are struggling to find ways to pay rent. NYSC, which is owned by Town Sports International, is already facing a class-action lawsuit accusing them of 'stealing and defrauding' members by taking money during the global health crisis. But the latest decision to charge more money at the start of April may lead to further legal action and has caused fury among members. David E. Gottlieb, partner at Wigdor LLP, the firm who have filed the class action, told DailyMail.com: 'It is the height of arrogance that even after a class action lawsuit alleging the obvious - that they shouldn't be charging people when their gyms are closed - on the first of the month they charged their customers what likely amounts to tens of millions in improper charges, and they apparently have no intention to change their practices going forward.' [GN] NEW YORK: Board Appeals Decision in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's Judgment dated March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 20-1211, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff–Appellee Pedro Nieves, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NEW YORK: Board Appeals Judgment in Gulino Suit to Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York filed an appeal from District Court's Judgment dated March 12, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled GULINO, ET AL. v. THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. 96-cv-8414, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs, a group of African-American and Latino teachers in the New York City public school system, alleged that Defendant, the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et seq., by requiring Plaintiffs to pass certain racially discriminatory standardized tests in order to obtain a license to teach in New York City public schools. Judge Constance Baker Motley, to whom the case was originally assigned, certified the plaintiff class on July 13, 2001, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). On December 5, 2012, the Court decertified the Plaintiff class to the extent it sought damages and individualized injunctive relief in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). The class survived, however, to the extent Plaintiffs sought relief that may be awarded under Rule 23(b)(2), including a declaratory judgment regarding liability and classwide injunctive relief. The appellate case is captioned as In re: New York City Board, Case No. 20-1263, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff–Appellee Nia Greene, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Sohn, Esq STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 806-1245 Email: joshua.sohn@dlapiper.com Defendant-Appellant Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York is represented by: James Edward Johnson, Esq. CORPORATION COUNSEL CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 356-2500 NORWEGIAN AIR: Daversa-Evdyriadis Seeks Refund for Shelved Flight ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cherish Daversa-Evdyriadis, an individual person on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA and Kiwi.Com, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00767, (C.D. Cal., April 13, 2020), seeks a full cash refund, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract. Norwegian focuses heavily on travel between the United States and Europe, carrying over two million passengers. Its business was disrupted as a result of the recent travel ban between the United States and Europe due to the COVID19 pandemic. Daversa-Evdyriadis was scheduled to fly with Norwegian on a departing flight from Los Angeles to Paris, and on a returning flight from Berlin to Los Angeles. It was cancelled by Norwegian due to the coronavirus travel ban so she requested a refund. She alleged that Norwegian is only offering an opportunity to get credit for a future flight and not refunds. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com ykrivoshey@bursor.com NORWEGIAN CRUISE: Schall Law Firm Announces Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. (NASDAQ:NCLH) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between February 20, 2020 and March 2, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before May 11, 2020. Contact: Brian Schall The Schall Law Firm, 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067, Tel: 310-301-3335 Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/ E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. Norwegian sales staff made statements to customers ranging from unproven to blatantly false about the COVID-19 coronavirus to prevent cancellations and convince new customers to book cruises, endangering the lives of both customers and crew members. Based on this fact, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about Norwegian, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Stipulation to Dismiss Jackie888 Suit Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court overseeing the case, Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796, has granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. On August 19, 2016, a purported stockholder of Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tokai) filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, entitled Jackie888, Inc. v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. CGC-16-553796. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to Tokai's Initial Public Offering (IPO). On October 19, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, and certain individual defendants moved to quash the plaintiff's summons for lack of personal jurisdiction. On February 27, 2017, the Superior Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to stay the lawsuit. On May 24, 2018, the plaintiff dismissed its complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California and refiled its complaint in the Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court Department of the Suffolk County Trial Court, Massachusetts ("Massachusetts State Court"). On June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action. On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated with the Wu Action. The Jackie888 Action and Wu Action were later de-consolidated on May 16, 2019 when the Wu Action was dismissed with prejudice. In the remaining Jackie888 action, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on August 22, 2019. Defendants opposed the plaintiff's motion, and the Court held a hearing on the motion for class certification on October 23, 2019. On November 25, 2019, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On December 23, 2019, the court granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss the case with prejudice. Headquartered in Irvine, California, Novus Therapeutics, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing products for patients with disorders of ear, nose, and throat. Its lead product is (OP-02), a surfactant-based combination drug product for patients at risk for, or with, otitis media (OM) (middle ear inflammation with or without infection). The company also has a foam-based drug delivery technology (OP-01) that could be used to deliver drugs into the ear, nose, and sinus cavities. NOVUS THERAPEUTICS: Wu Securities Class Action Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Novus Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that plaintiff Wu has failed to serve written responses by the deadline and her claims were subsequently dismissed with prejudice. On December 5, 2016, a putative securities class action was filed in the Massachusetts State Court, entitled Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-3725 BLS. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of purchasers of Tokai common stock in or traceable to Tokai's initial Public Offering (IPO). On December 19, 2016, defendants removed the Wu Action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it was captioned Wu v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., 16-cv-12550. On January 6, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the Wu Action to Massachusetts State Court. On September 28, 2017, the court stayed the case pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, S. Ct. Case No. 15-1439. On March 20, 2018, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Cyan that state courts have subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions alleging only Securities Act claims and that such actions are not removable to federal court. On March 22, 2018, plaintiff moved for leave to submit the Cyan decision in support of plaintiff's remand motion. On March 27, 2018 the Wu Action was remanded to the Massachusetts State Court. On May 3, 2018, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. Following the refiling of the Jackie888 Action in Massachusetts State Court, on June 28, 2018, plaintiff Wu moved to consolidate the Jackie888 Action with the Wu Action. On June 29, 2018, plaintiffs Jackie888 and Wu filed a consolidated complaint. On July 6, 2018, the Jackie888 Action was consolidated with the Wu Action. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September 28, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on October 19, 2018. In addition, Defendants moved to strike the class allegations in the consolidated complaint on August 15, 2018, plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto on September 11, 2018, and defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on September 21, 2018. The court held a hearing on November 15, 2018 on defendants' motion to strike. On December 20, 2018, the court denied defendants' motion to strike. The court held a hearing on December 20, 2018 on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2019, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss. On February 6, 2019, the court entered a scheduling order, pursuant to which discovery on merits issues was stayed pending the court's resolution of class certification. On April 18, 2019, the court held a hearing as to plaintiff Wu's failure to respond to defendant's discovery requests. The court issued an order requiring plaintiff Wu to serve written responses to the pending discovery requests by May 10, 2019. Plaintiff Wu failed to serve written responses by the deadline and her claims were subsequently dismissed with prejudice by the court on May 16, 2019. Headquartered in Irvine, California, Novus Therapeutics, Inc., is a pharmaceutical company that focuses on developing products for patients with disorders of ear, nose, and throat. Its lead product is (OP-02), a surfactant-based combination drug product for patients at risk for, or with, otitis media (OM) (middle ear inflammation with or without infection). The company also has a foam-based drug delivery technology (OP-01) that could be used to deliver drugs into the ear, nose, and sinus cavities. OHIO CASUALTY: Faces Pacific Suit Over Denied Insurance Benefits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Endodontics, P.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:20-cv-00620-RSM (W.D. Wash., April 23, 2020), is brought against Defendant to ensure that the Plaintiff and other similarly-situated policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are entitled and for which they paid. Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff says it cannot provide dental endodontist services. The Plaintiff intended to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going concern. The Defendant issued one or more insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including Business Owners Coverage and related endorsements, insuring the Plaintiff's property and business practice and other coverages, with effective dates of June 21, 2019, to June 21, 2020. The Defendant's insurance policy issued to the Plaintiff promises to pay the Plaintiff for "DIRECT PHYSICAL LOSS" to covered property and includes coverage for risks of both "loss of or damage to" covered property. The Defendant OCIC's insurance policy issued to Plaintiff includes Business Income Coverage, Extended Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage and Civil Authority Coverage. The Plaintiff paid all premiums for the coverage when due. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's property sustained direct physical loss and/or damages related to COVID19 and/or the proclamations and orders. The Plaintiff's property will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the OCIC policy or policies, including business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, and other expenses. The Plaintiff's property cannot be used for its intended purposes. As a result, the Plaintiff has experienced and will experience loss covered by the OCIC policy or policies. The Plaintiff submitted a claim to OCIC for the direct physical loss or damage to the Plaintiff's property covered under the OCIC policy related to COVID-19 and/or the proclamations and orders; OCIC denied the Plaintiff's claim for coverage, says the complaint. Pacific Endodontics, P.S., is a dentistry endodontics business with locations at Seattle, Washington. OCIC is an insurance carrier incorporated and domiciled in the State of New Hampshire.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ian S. Birk, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Irene M. Hecht, Esq. Amy Williams Derry, Esq. Maureen Falecki, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 Email: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com ihecht@kellerrohrback.com awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com mfalecki@kellerrohrback.com - and - Alison Chase, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 801 Garden Street, Suite 301 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: (805) 456-1496 Fax: (805) 456-1497 Email: achase@kellerrohrback.com PACE UNIVERSITY: Marbury Suit Seeks Refund of Tuition and Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Xaviera Marbury, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PACE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:20-cv-03210 (S.D.N.Y., April 23, 2020), is brought to seek refunds of the tuition and fees the Plaintiff and other members of the proposed class are owed on a pro-rata basis, together with other damages. The Plaintiff has paid substantial tuition for the Spring 2020 semester either out of pocket or by utilizing student loan financing. This case is as a result of the Defendant's decision to close campus, constructively evict students, and transition all classes to an online/remote format as a result of the Novel Coronavirus Disease ("COVID-19"). While closing campus and transitioning to online classes was the right thing for the Defendant to do, this decision deprived the Plaintiff from recognizing the benefits of in-person instruction, housing, meals, access to campus facilities, student activities, and other benefits and services in exchange for which they had already paid fees and tuition, the Plaintiff contends. The Defendant has either refused to provide reimbursement for the tuition, housing, meals, fees and other costs that the Defendant is no longer providing, or has provided inadequate and/or arbitrary reimbursement that does not fully compensate the Plaintiff and members of the Class for their loss, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is currently enrolled as a full-time student in the Defendant's undergraduate program, studying business. Pace University is an institution of higher learning located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 695-8050 Email: jbradham@msbllp.com pkatzman@msbllp.com - and - Edward Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (212) 699-8930 Email: edward@toptanilaw.com - and - Eric M. Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey IV, Esq. ANASTOPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (843) 614-8888 Email: eric@akimlawfirm.com roy@akimlawfirm.com PAM TRANSPORT: Independent Contractors' Class Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a collective- and class-action lawsuit initiated by independent contractors. The company is a defendant in a collective- and class-action lawsuit which was filed on May 29, 2019, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs, who are independent contractors who have been under contract with the Company during the period of May 29, 2016 through the date of filing, allege violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Law. The plaintiffs, through their attorneys, have filed causes of action alleging "misclassification as independent contractors, payment on the basis of miles without regard to the number of hours worked, improper deductions, and failure to pay minimum wage." The plaintiffs are seeking actual and liquidated damages to include court costs and legal fees. P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc., is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a truckload transportation and logistics company. The company is based in Tontitown, Arkansas. PAM TRANSPORT: Settlement of Employees Suit Wins Initial Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas has granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached with the plaintiffs. The company is a defendant in a collective- and class-action lawsuit which was filed on December 9, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The plaintiffs, who include current and former employee drivers who worked for the Company during the period of December 9, 2013, through December 31, 2019, allege violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Law including "failure to pay minimum wage during orientation, failure to pay minimum wage to team drivers after initial orientation, failure to pay minimum wage to solo-drivers after initial orientation, failure to pay for compensable travel time, Comdata card fees, unlawful deductions, and breach of contract." The plaintiffs are seeking actual and liquidated damages to include court costs and legal fees. On February 18, 2020, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached with the plaintiffs. The settlement is subject to final approval by the court. P.A.M. Transportation Services, Inc., is a holding company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, operates as a truckload transportation and logistics company. The company is based in Tontitown, Arkansas. PAYSIGN INC: Pomerantz Reminds Investors of May 18 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Paysign, Inc. (NASDAQ: PAYS) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and indexed under 20-cv-00585, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Paysign securities between March 12, 2019, and March 15, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased Paysign securities during the class period, you have until May 18, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby POMERANTZ LLP Tel: 888.476.6529 Toll-Free: 888.4-POMLAW, Ext. 7980. E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. Paysign provides prepaid card programs and processing services under the Paysign brand to corporations, government agencies, universities, and other organizations. The Company changed its name from 3PEA International Inc. to Paysign, Inc. on April 23, 2019. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Paysign's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) Paysign's internal control over financial reporting was not effective; (ii) Paysign's information technology ("IT") general controls were not effective; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 16, 2020, during pre-market hours, Paysign announced that it would be unable to file its annual financial report with the SEC in a timely fashion because of an ongoing audit, advising investors that "management identified material weaknesses related to (i) assessment of internal controls over financial reporting and (ii) [IT] general controls." On this news, Paysign's stock price fell $0.93 per share, or 16.85%, to close at $4.59 per share on March 16, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] PIZZA NOVA: Delivery Drivers Launch C$150MM Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Mojtehedzadeh, writing for TheStar.com, reports that Canadian pizza chain Pizza Nova is facing a multimillion-dollar class action claiming its independently owned franchises misclassified delivery drivers as independent contractors and failed to pay them minimum wage. The suit, which was filed in March, seeks $150 million in damages for drivers dating back to 2012. Citing a "systemic breach" of provincial employment laws, the lawsuit claims that delivery drivers at 140 Pizza Nova stores across Ontario were denied "appropriate compensation" and protections because they were not classified as employees. "I've spent years of my life working as a pizza delivery driver and experiencing the problems of employment misclassification in the industry first-hand," said Juan Jose Lira Cervantes, the representative plaintiff for the class action. In a statement to the Star, Pizza Nova president Domenic Primucci said the company "denies the allegations made by Mr. Cervantes in the lawsuit." Josh Mandryk, a lawyer with Goldblatt Partners - the Toronto-based labour law firm launching the class action - described driver misclassification as "pervasive in the pizza delivery industry" and said it "denies these workers of core workplace protections." [GN] PNC FINANCIAL: Lincoln Seeks to Stop Illegal PPP-Linked Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lincoln Network, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. and PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 3:20-cv-02824-TSH (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2020), seeks an injunction preventing PNC from continuing its illegal business practices relating to the Paycheck Protection Program and compensation for the harms caused by the Defendants' misconduct. The U.S. Small Business Administration ("SBA") Paycheck Protection Program ("PPP") was intended to help "overcome the challenges" of the Coronavirus crisis and "provide a direct incentive to small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll" by providing SBA-guaranteed loans of up to $10 million to qualified applicants. Anticipating the massive demand for relief and to ensure non-preferential distribution of funds, the PPP's governing rules required that banks process applications on a "first-come, first-served" basis. In violation of these rules, California law, and their fiduciary obligations, the Defendants favored their own interests by prioritizing larger loan applications for bigger businesses and PNC's own banking clients ahead of smaller businesses, independent contractors and applicants, who were not existing PNC customers, the Plaintiff alleges. Lincoln Network's experience applying for a PPP loan through PNC is typical of other Class members. After reading about the program and available funds, Lincoln Network reached out to the PNC on March 27, 2020, asked for guidance to prepare and submit a PPP loan application as soon as possible. At no time did PNC disclose and the Plaintiff was unaware that PNC was violating the PPP governing rules by favoring existing PNC customers and applicants seeking larger loans and putting smaller borrowers like Lincoln Network to the back of the queue or not submitting their application at all. As of the date of this Complaint, the Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class have suffered enormous and potentially irreversible damages. Additionally, the delay caused by PNC's misrepresentations and omissions caused hardship, including business cessation, for many applicants who were and are desperately seeking a lifeline through the PPP, says the complaint. Plaintiff Lincoln Network is, and has been since 2017, a PNC small business banking customer. PNC Bank, National Association is a national commercial bank and wholly owned subsidiary of PNC FSG with its principal business address at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Galdston, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C. 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 340 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (619) 489-0300 Email: bgaldston@bm.net - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP PO Box 12638 Raleigh, NC 27605 Phone: 919-600-5000 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 Email: dan@whitfieldbryson.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com - and - Alex R. Straus, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 16748 McCormick Street Los Angeles, CA 91436 Phone: (310) 450-9689 Email: alex@gregcolemanlaw.com - and – Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Phone: (865) 247-0080 Email: lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Johannessohn Appeals Ruling to Eighth Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Riley Johannessohn filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Riley Johannessohn, et al. v. Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-03348-NEB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers, who purchased Sportsman ATVs between October 4, 2010 and October 4, 2016. Alternatively, if the Court finds that Minnesota law does not apply to all purchases of Sportsman ATVs in the United States, the Plaintiffs seek to represent seven subclasses of Sportsman purchasers, one for each of their states of residence. The Plaintiffs assert claims under the consumer-protection laws of their states as well as a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The Plaintiffs' consumer protection claims are largely premised on their allegation that Polaris failed to disclose the defect. The appellate case is captioned as Riley Johannessohn, et al. v. Polaris Industries Inc., Case No. 20-8005, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Riley Johannessohn, et al., are represented by: Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. Karen Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue, S. Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Email: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com khriebel@locklaw.com – and – Steven Calamusa, Esq. Robert E. Gordon, Esq. GORDON & PARTNERS 4114 Northlake Boulevard Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 799-5070 Email: scalamusa@fortheinjured.com rgordon@fortheinjured.com – and – Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Eric A. Kafka, Esq. Theodore J. Leopold, Esq. Douglas James McNamara, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN West Tower, Suite 500 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005-3934 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Email: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com tleopold@cohenmilstein.com dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com Defendant-Respondent Polaris Industries Inc. is represented by: Andrew B. Bloomer, Esq. Paul David Collier, Esq. Richard C. Godfrey, Esq. R. Allan Pixton, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS 300 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2000 – and – Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. FAEGRE & DRINKER 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 S. Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 766-7000 PRINCESS CRUISES: Ruby Princess Operators May Face Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- 7News Australia reports that a law firm claims that passengers of the coronavirus-stricken Ruby Princess cruise ship may be entitled to compensation after hundreds were infected, some fatally. Shine Lawyers is exploring the possibility of a class action for the "loss and suffering people have experienced since they have disembarked from that cruise". More than 400 of the 2700 passengers who disembarked in Sydney on March 19 have contracted the disease. Around one-quarter of Australia's coronavirus death toll of 28 were on board the ship. The passengers' experience has been among "the most egregious set of facts imaginable", Shine lawyer Jan Saddler told 7NEWS. She said the class action could be against cruise operators and the authorities "responsible of the disembarkation of the people after they left that cruise, and then filtering into the community without any checks". "Shine Lawyers has been contacted by dozens of people across Australia who were passengers, and also the family members of people who unfortunately have passed away who were passengers on the Ruby Princess," Saddler said. [GN] RAINBOW REALTY: Rent-To-Own Class Action Suit Okayed to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Sheridan, writing for WFYI, reports that a federal court has certified a case against an Indianapolis rent-to-own company as a class action case, where a group of people with similar claims can sue the defendant as a group. Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana Executive Director Amy Nelson says the new certification is important. "By being able to get the class status, we can now try to get justice for many more consumers who we feel were harmed by the respondents practices," says Nelson. The class ruling includes thousands of current and former clients of Rainbow Realty Group. Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana is also a plaintiff. The real estate company is accused of deceiving customers with the promise of homeownership. "We view those contracts as predatory, that they violated a number of federal and state laws including that they disproportionately impacted African Americans and Latinos, here in Indianapolis," says Nelson. The case, filed in 2017, includes nearly one thousand homes in the city. The realty group is accused of selling properties that are uninhabitable and obligating renters to do repairs or face eviction, with no protection. Anyone who believes they could be part of the suit should contact Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana. [GN] REM CONSTRUCTION: Proposed Consumer Class Action Denied ------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that citizens unhappy with the REM construction, which is disrupting train service from Deux-Montagnes and Mascouche to Montreal, failed to get a judge to authorize a proposed class action. The construction of the Reseau express metropolitain (REM) is causing headaches for many people because the construction work is interrupting the commuter train service on two lines, Mascouche and Deux-Montagnes. The class action request was filed on behalf of a Laval resident and representative plaintiff Magali Barre, who is affected by the train line interruptions. She uses the Deux-Montagnes line to get to work in downtown Montreal. Barre wanted to sue CDPQ Infra Inc., Exo, the Regional Authority for Metropolitan Transport, Projet REM S.E.N.C, as well as the Attorney General of Quebec. Barre is not opposed to the REM project, but alleges the defendants have not properly mitigated the consequences of the construction. REM officials have announced accommodations, but Barre considers them insufficient because her commute time, like many others, will be doubled. Barre was seeking compensatory and punitive damages. In his decision, Justice Pierre-C. Gagnon of the Superior Court wrote that the criteria for authorizing a class action were not met. His decision points out that Barre's claim does not show that authorities have abused their power or that any fault has been committed. The Judge also said Barre does not meet the conditions to be the representative of the group of people who would have benefited from the class action. [GN] RING LLC: Lebak Wants Disclosure of Add'l Fee for Video Recording ----------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL F. LEBAK, for Himself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. RING LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-00603 (W.D. Wash., April 22, 2020), seeks prominent disclosures in the packaging of the Defendant's products regarding certain additional fees. The Plaintiff seeks an order directing that the outside product packaging for Ring video doorbells and security cameras include prominent disclosures that the video recording, playback and snapshot features of the products will not function unless the purchaser also buys the Protect Plan from Ring for an additional fee of $3 per month or $30 per year per device. The Plaintiff also brings this action as a representative plaintiff on behalf of a class and subclass of United States consumers, who purchased Ring products whose outside boxes did not include such disclosures, seeking to recover damages and/or that the Defendant be ordered to disgorge all revenues the Defendant has unjustly received from the members of the classes. Ring video doorbells and security cameras have become ubiquitous in the past several years, with these products being promoted as a low-cost and efficient way of enhancing home security through monitoring one's front door and deterring potential intruders, "package thieves," vandals, and burglars. The Plaintiff is an alleged deceived Ring LLC customer and a private attorney general. Ring is a home security and smart home company owned by Amazon.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 400 108th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen DeNittis, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 525 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com RIPPLE: Amended Suit Furthers That XRP Not a Security ----------------------------------------------------- Bitcoin Exchange Guide reports that an amended class-action lawsuit has been filed against Ripple that has claims of misleading advertising as well as unfair competition. The amended lawsuit also furthers speculation that XRP does not qualify as a security. The two-year class action lawsuit states that Ripple, a firm offering blockchain-based payments infrastructure, went against the set securities rules during the sale and marketing process of XRP. Now, the amended suit claims that the firm as well as its CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, were involved in fraudulent business practices, CoinDesk reports. The lead plaintiff in the suit is Bradley Sostack who is an ex-XRP investor and is suing Ripple as a representative of all the investors who bought XRP tokens from the company. The refiled suit states that Ripple raised millions of money by selling unregistered security, XRP, to unsuspecting retail investors. According to official documents from the courts that were submitted on March 25, the sixth claim for relief alleges that Ripple was involved in misleading advertising which is against the California business laws. The investors state that the claims for relief were made "under the alternative theory that XRP is not a security." The amendment also brings forth a seventh claim accusing Ripple of engaging in an unfair competition that is against California law as well as a claim that XRP does not qualify as a security. The fresh amendments appear to introduce new "alternative theory" into the lawsuit just in case the judge presiding over the case issues a ruling stating that Ripple did not engage in promotion and selling an unqualified or unregistered security. The amendment also cites a statement by Ripple and its CEO, Garlinghouse, on claims that XRP is only used as a utility token which is important in enhancing cross-border payments and that its sale is meant for market makers. However, the plaintiffs allege that 60 percent of all the XRP is a property of Ripple and is mostly sold for investment. Garlinghouse is also accused of misleading XRP investors to hold, while he sold his own XRP that was worth millions. [GN] RIVIANA FOODS: Appeals Ruling in Clevenger Suit to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Riviana Foods, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in the lawsuit styled Sherrie Clevenger, et al. v. Riviana Foods, Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01572-JVS-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the consumer protection lawsuit arises from the Defendant's practice of "slack-filling" boxes of its specialty pastas. The practice of using oversized containers with significant, nonfunctional, empty space inside them is called "slack-fill" and is illegal under California and Federal law. The Plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including restitution, plus monetary recovery pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. The appellate case is captioned as Sherrie Clevenger, et al. v. Riviana Foods, Inc., Case No. 20-80068, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SHERRIE CLEVENGER and THERESA REISFELT, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, are represented by: Anthony Lawrence Lanza, Esq. Brodie Hugh Smith, Esq. LANZA & SMITH 3 Park Plaza Irvine, CA 92614-8540 Telephone: (949) 221-0490 Email: tony@lanzasmith.com brodie@lanzasmith.com – and – Robert J. Stein, III, Esq. DIVINCENZO SCHOENFIELD STEIN 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1650 Irvine, CA 92657 Telephone: (714) 881-7002 Email: Drstein@DSSLaw.com Defendant-Petitioner RIVIANA FOODS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, DBA Ronzoni, is represented by: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas, 41st Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 248-3191 Email: jeffrey.jacobson@faegredrinker.com ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Court Approves Settlement in NY Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the court has approved the settlement in the consolidated class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff Ah Kit Too filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and former officers, Robert Chioini and Thomas Klema. The complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of the Company between March 16, 2018 and June 26, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants filed reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission that contained purported inaccurate and misleading statements regarding the potential for the Company's drug, Triferic, to quality for separate reimbursement status by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiff Robert Spock filed a similar putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of New York against the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema. The Spock complaint is a federal securities class action purportedly brought on behalf of a class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. This complaint alleges that the Company and Messrs. Chioini and Klema violated the Exchange Act in that the Company was aware the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would not pursue the Company's proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic; misstated reserves in the Company's quarterly report for the first quarter of 2018; had a material weakness its internal controls over financial reporting, which rendered those controls ineffective; Mr. Chioini withheld material information regarding Triferic from the Company's auditor, corporate counsel, and independent directors of the Board; and, as a result of these alleged issues, statements about the Company's business were materially false and misleading. On September 25, 2018, four Company stockholders filed motions to appoint lead plaintiffs, lead counsel, and to consolidate the Ah Kit Too v. Rockwell securities class action with the Spock v. Rockwell securities class action. On October 10, 2018, the court issued an order consolidating the two actions, appointing co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel. On December 10, 2018, lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which included the same allegations as the initial complaints and asserted claims on behalf of a putative class consisting of person who purchased the Company's securities between November 8, 2017 and June 26, 2018. On February 18, 2019, the Company answered the consolidated amended complaint. The lawsuits seek damages allegedly sustained by the class and an award of plaintiffs' costs and attorney fees. The case is at an early stage with no significant pre-trial proceedings (such, as substantive motions, discovery, etc.) having occurred. The Company believes it has defenses to the claims of liability and damages and is responding accordingly. On August 7, 2019, all parties to the class action entered into a settlement of the consolidated class action. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement, the Company will pay the Plaintiffs $3.7 million (the "Settlement Amount") in exchange for a full release of all liability as to all defendants. Of the Settlement Amount, the Company will be contributing approximately $0.4 million, which represents the remaining retention amount under the Company's director and officer liability insurance policy. The remainder of the settlement amount will be funded by the Company's director and officer insurance policy. The settlement was approved by the court on February 26, 2020. Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as a specialty pharmaceutical company that targets end-stage renal disease and chronic kidney disease with therapies and products for the treatment of iron deficiency and hemodialysis. Rockwell Medical, Inc. was founded in 1994 and is based in Wixom, Michigan. RTI SURGICAL: Bragar Eagel Reminds of May 22 Deadline ----------------------------------------------------- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm, reminds investors that class actions have been commenced on behalf of stockholders of RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (NADAQ: RTIX). Stockholders have until the deadlines below to petition the court to serve as lead plaintiff. Additional information about each case can be found at the link provided. RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RTIX) Class Period: March 7, 2016 to March 16, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 22, 2020 On March 16, 2020, RTI announced in a press release that it would file a Form 12b-25 with SEC due to its inability to timely file its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019. The Company disclosed that the cause of the delay was that its Audit Committee was investigating the Company's revenue recognition practices. On this news, RTI's shares fell $0.40 per share or over 14.55% to close at $2.35 per share on March 17, 2020. The complaint, filed on March 23, 2020, alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company inappropriately recognized revenues with respect to certain contractual arrangements, including other equipment manufacturer customers; (2) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were not effective; (3) as a result, the Company would be forced to delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal year ended December 31, 2019; and (4) as a result, defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. For more information on the RTI class action go to: https://bespc.com/RTIX Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is a nationally recognized law firm with offices in New York and California. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in commercial, securities, derivative, and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country. For more information about the firm, please visit www.bespc.com. Contact: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. Melissa Fortunato, Esq. Marion Passmore, Esq. Tel: (212) 355-4648 E-mail: investigations@bespc.com Web site: http://www.bespc.com/[GN] RTI SURGICAL: Kaskela Law Notes of May 22 Plaintiff Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------ Kaskela Law LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against RTI Surgical Holdings, Inc. ("RTI Surgical" or the "Company") (RTIX) on behalf of investors who purchased shares of the Company's stock between March 7, 2016 and March 16, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased shares of RTI Surgical common stock during the Class Period and suffered an investment loss in excess of $50,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC (D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.) at (484)258-1585, or via email at skaskela@kaskelalaw.com, to discuss this action and their legal rights and options. Additional information about this action may also be found at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/rti-surgical/. On March 16, 2020, RTI Surgical disclosed that its Audit Committee was "in the process of conducting an internal investigation of current and prior period matters relating to the Company's revenue recognition practices regarding the timing of revenue with respect to certain contractual arrangements, primarily with OEM customers, including the accounting treatment, financial reporting and internal controls related to such arrangements." Additionally, the Company disclosed that the investigation "was precipitated by an ongoing SEC investigation related to the periods 2014 through 2016." Following this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $0.76 per share, or over 27% in value, to close on March 18, 2020 at $1.99 per share. The complaint alleges that RTI Surgical made a series of false and misleading statements to investors during the Class Period, and failed to disclose that: (i) the Company inappropriately recognized revenues with respect to certain contractual arrangements, including other equipment manufacturer customers; and (ii) the Company's internal controls over financial reporting were not effective. IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased RTI Surgical's securities during the Class Period may, no later than May 22, 2020, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff shareholders representative in the action. Investors are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC for additional information about this action. Kaskela Law LLC exclusively represents investors in securities fraud, corporate governance, and merger & acquisition litigation. Contact: D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Tel: (484) 258 - 1585 (888) 715 - 1740 Web site: http://www.kaskelalaw.com/ E-mail: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] SF TIRE: Faces Sweet Class Suit in California Superior Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against SF Tire and Service Central Inc. The case is captioned as JOSHUA SWEET, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED v. SF TIRE & SERVICE CENTRAL INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC20584213 (Cal. Super., San Francisco Cty., April 22, 2020) The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Garrett L. Wong. A case management conference will be held on Sept. 23, 2020. SF Tire is in the tires and tubes business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq. WOODALL LAW OFFICES 100 Pine St., Ste. 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 413-4629 Facsimile: (866) 937-4109 E-mail: kevin@kwoodalllaw.com SHASTA BEVERAGES: Garcia Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Amber Garcia filed an appeal from a court ruling issued in her lawsuit styled Amber Garcia v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-07798-PA-AFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege six causes of action: (1) Unpaid Accrued Vacation Time (2) Unpaid Overtime (3) Unpaid Rest Period Premiums (4) Non-Compliant Wage Statements (5) Waiting Time Penalties (6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code. The appellate case is captioned as Amber Garcia v. Shasta Beverages, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-80067, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner AMBER GARCIA, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated non-exempt former and current employees, is represented by: Michael J. Berry, Esq. Heather K. McMillan, Esq. Daniel P. Stevens, Esq. STEVENS & MCMILLAN 335 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 730-1000 Email: michael@scmclaw.com heather@scmclaw.com ken@scmclaw.com Defendants-Respondents SHASTA BEVERAGES, INC., et al., are represented by: Christopher John Kondon, Esq. Saman Mostafavi Rejali, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-5034 Email: christopher.kondon@klgates.com saman.rejali@klgates.com TELECOM ARGENTINA: Faces Class Suit by Consumer Groups ------------------------------------------------------ Telecom Argentina S.A. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company has been named as a defendant in a class action suit initiated by Union de Consumidores y Consumidores and Consumidores Libres Cooperativa Ltda. On September 3, 2019, Telecom (as surviving company of Cablevision) was notified of a lawsuit initiated by "Union de Consumidores y Consumidores" and "Consumidores Libres Cooperativa Ltda. de Provision de Servicios de Accion Comunitaria", pending before the Commercial Court of First Instance No. 9, Secretariat No. 17, for undetermined amounts. In the class action, the claimants requested the Company to credit to its subscribers the increases of September and October 2018, January 2019 and the increases that may be made for as long as the claim remains pending for Internet services, subscription broadcasting services, other technology information and communication services and other supplementary services (all of those services provided under the brands Cablevision and Fibertel), plus interest until the date of the effective restitution. The claimants allege that the Company infringed certain provisions set forth under the TIC and Communication Services Customers Regulation and Law No. 24,240 related to the terms and the way in which subscribers shall be notified of changes in the prices of those services. The Company, based on the advice of its legal counsel, considers that it has strong arguments for its defense. However, the final outcome of this claim cannot be assured. Telecom Argentina S.A. is the major local telephone company for the northern part of Argentina, including the whole of the city of Buenos Aires. Briefly known as Sociedad Licenciataria Norte S.A., it quickly changed its name, and is usually known as simply "Telecom" within Argentina. The company is based in Buenos Aires Argentina. TERRAFORM POWER: Dearborn Police & Rosson Class Suits Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ TerraForm Power, Inc. said in its Form 10-K report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System and Martin Rosson have agreed, with the consent of the Company and Brookfield, to consolidate their respective claims and such consolidation was approved by the Court On September 19, 2019, lead plaintiff Martin Rosson filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the Company, himself, and other minority stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant). The complaint alleges that the defendant controlling stockholders breached their fiduciary duty to minority stockholders because the Company undertook a private placement of the Company's stock on terms that the complaint alleges are unfair, instead of pursuing a public offering. The proceeds of the private placement were used to fund the acquisition by the Company of Saeta and had been approved by the Conflicts Committee of the Company's Board of Directors. The complaint seeks the rescission and invalidation of the private placement and payment to the Company of rescissory damages, among other relief. In a related development, on October 15, 2019, the Company received a demand letter for the production of books and records pursuant to 8 Del. C. Section 220 to allow counsel to the City of Dearborn Policy and Retirement System (a purported shareholder of the Company) to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty by Brookfield and the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the funding of the acquisition of Saeta. Subsequent to year end, on January 27, 2020, the City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of the Company, itself, and other minority stockholders of the Company against Brookfield and certain of its affiliates (including the Company as a nominal defendant) alleging claims similar to those set forth in the Rosson complaint. The City of Dearborn Police and Retirement System and Martin Rosson agreed, with the consent of the Company and Brookfield, to consolidate their respective claims and such consolidation was approved by the Court during the first quarter of 2020. TerraForm said, "While the Company believes that these claims are without merit, it cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution of any proceedings brought in connection with these claims." TerraForm Power, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates clean power generation assets. The company was formerly known as SunEdison Yieldco, Inc. and changed its name to TerraForm Power, Inc. in May 2014. TerraForm Power, Inc. was founded in 2014 and is headquartered in New York, New York. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Garity Suit Challenges Sale to AcelRx ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD GARITY, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., L. PATRICK GAGE, LARRY EDWARDS, GAREN BOHLIN, STEVEN BOYD, JEFFREY A. CHODAKEWITZ, JOHN G. FREUND, GERRI HENWOOD, GUY MACDONALD, KEITH MAHER, NANCY J. WYSENSKI, ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and CONSOLIDATION MERGER SUB, INC., Case No. 1:20-cv-00542-UNA (D. Del., April 22, 2020), stems from a proposed transaction pursuant to which Tetraphase will be acquired by AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On March 15, 2020, Tetraphase's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with AcelRx. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Tetraphase's stockholders will receive 0.6303 shares of Parent common stock and one contingent value right for each share of Tetraphase common stock they own. On April 6, 2020, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement omits material financial information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement. The Plaintiff contends that the disclosure of projected financial information is material because it provides stockholders with a basis to project the future financial performance of the resulting company, and allows stockholders to better understand the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor in support of its fairness opinion. The Plaintiff is and has been the owner of Tetraphase common stock. Tetraphase is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company uses its chemistry technology to create antibiotics for multidrug-resistant infections. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: mdees@holzerlaw.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com TREASURY WINE ESTATES: Hit With Shareholder Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Darren Gray, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Australia's biggest wine company, Treasury Wine Estates, has been hit with a shareholder class action, alleging it engaged in misleading or deceptive conductive and breached its continuous disclosure obligations to the market. The allegations are contained in a new action launched in the Victorian Supreme Court, with shareholder Brett Stallard as trustee for the Stallard Superannuation Fund, the plaintiff. Australia's biggest wine company, Treasury Wine Estates, is facing a new shareholder class action. The writ alleges that on February 14, 2019 the wine giant engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct when it forecast reported EBITS (earnings before interest, tax and the agricultural accounting standard SGARA) growth of about 15 per cent to 20 per cent in the 2019-20 financial year. But the writ alleges that by that date it was known that there were a series of events that would hamper the performance of its key US operations. The writ says these included forecasts that the 2018 US grape harvest would be a new record, with 4.4 million tonnes expected to be produced in the key region of California, and Pacific Northwest production also expected to set new records. It also claims it was known that the US wine industry was "expected to transition to a period of . . . low sales growth" and that the various factors hitting the US wine market "were likely to create a downward pressure on prices". The writ alleges the US conditions were likely to hurt the volumes and sales of its US operations, and required it to undertake higher levels of discounting. The writ also claims the departure in January 2019 of its then US head was "likely to materially adversely impact" its operating performance in the region in fiscal 2020. In combination, the US leadership change and the US wine market conditions, presented a "a material risk that Treasury would not achieve growth in EBITS at a rate of 15% to 20% in financial year 2020," it alleges. The action also alleges that Treasury, which maintained its 15 per cent to 20 per cent EBITS growth guidance until this year, also engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and breached its continuous disclosure obligations in August 2019 and October 2019, as it maintained its earnings guidance. The court document shows that Mr Stallard, the plaintiff, bought 1,000 shares in Treasury on December 19 last year at $16.79 each for a total cost of $16,796.87. [GN] TREASURY WINE ESTATES: Slater & Gordon Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Business News Australia reports that Treasury Wine Estates (ASX: TWE) is now facing its second class action over a profit downgrade earlier this year when its earnings forecast was slashed by 10 percentage points. Following a similar action from Maurice Blackburn, law firm Slater & Gordon (ASX: SGH) alleges the information could have been uncorked earlier. "On the basis of SGH's investigations to date, we consider that there is likely to be a reasonable basis to allege that TWE contravened its obligations of continuous disclosure and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, breaching relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)," says Slater & Gordon. The forecast reduction from 15-20 per cent to 5-10 per cent EBITS growth related to challenges in the US market, where not only had competitors been undercutting prices but TWE itself had suffered from unexpected leadership changes. Unforeseen circumstances had meant meant Angus McPherson - who has been with the group for almost a decade - was unable to work in the US, and the company announced he would be replaced by Constellation Brands executive Ben Dollard. These leadership troubles led to a "loss of execution momentum" through the first half with EBITS down 17 per cent - a trend that was expected to carry through to this half. S&G notes in August 2019 the group had stuck by its EBITS growth forecast of 15-20 per cent, and noted its FY20 EBITS result would be delivered by growth in all markets, through continued top line growth and premiumisation as well as ongoing operational efficiency. As a result, S&G is making the claim for investors who purchased TWE shares between 15 August 2019 and 28 January 2020. "We are currently investigating whether the Claim Period can be extended to commence at an earlier date, potentially back to the date that the EBITS Growth Representation was made," the law firm said. Treasury Wine Estates confirms today it has been served with a group proceeding filed against TWE in the Supreme Court of Victoria. "The proceeding has been filed by Slater + Gordon on behalf of the plaintiff, who brings the claim on behalf of shareholders who acquired an interest in TWE shares between 14 February 2019 and 28 January 2020," the company says. "The statement of claim includes allegations of contraventions of the Corporations Act in relation to continuous disclosure and the Corporations Act and ASIC Act in relation to misleading or deceptive conduct. "TWE strongly denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend the proceeding." [GN] TRUMP CORP: ACN Appeals S.D.N.Y. Opinion and Order to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant ACN Opportunity, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled Jane Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-9936, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the RICO claims (Counts I and II), and their motion is denied with respect to the state law claims (Counts III through VIII). The RICO claims are dismissed because the Complaint does not sufficiently plead that the Defendants' conduct was the proximate cause of the Plaintiffs' losses. Accordingly, the substantive RICO and RICO conspiracy claims, Counts I and II, are dismissed. The lawsuit concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to promote certain third party companies offering multi-level marketing and training programs. The Complaint asserts racketeering and conspiracy claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). It also asserts various state law claims. For over a decade, the Defendants operated a complex enterprise through which they promoted third-party companies offering consumer-facing business opportunities and training programs. The companies included two "multi-level marketing" programs, ACN Opportunity, LLC ("ACN") and TTN, LLC (doing business as "The Trump Network"), and a "live-seminar program," Business Strategies Group, LLC (doing business as "The Trump Institute"). In 2005, the Defendants agreed to promote and endorse ACN. ACN is a company offering products and services through independent salespeople known as "Independent Business Owners," or "IBOs." In order to sell these products and services, IBOs must pay an initial sign-up fee and an annual renewal fee. From 2013 until 2016, these fees were $499 and $149, respectively. IBOs can earn commissions for selling ACN products and services, and can receive additional bonuses when they meet certain sales targets. IBOs can also earn money by recruiting others to sign up as IBOs. When an existing IBO recruits a new IBO, the recruit becomes part of the existing IBO's "downline," and the existing IBO becomes part of the recruit's "upline." IBOs can receive a commission on the sales generated by members of their downline. According to the complaint, the Defendants misled consumers into believing that ACN offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. They accomplished this by misrepresenting (a) the risk inherent in the ACN business opportunity, (b) the profitability to consumers of the ACN business opportunity and multi-level marketing programs in general and (c) the market for ACN's products and services. Second, Trump falsely represented that the reason he supported ACN was because it offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. He never disclosed that he was being paid millions of dollars for his endorsement. Third, the Defendants falsely represented that Trump's endorsement was predicated on appropriate due diligence, inside information and personal experience with ACN. ACN's association with Trump and the Trump brand was "extremely powerful in the minds of investors." In published testimonials, "IBOs attributed their decision to join ACN to Trump's endorsement." The appellate case is captioned as Jane Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 20-1278, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Alexander J. Rodney, Esq. KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 5th Avenue New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Email: arodney@kaplanhecker.com Defendant-Appellant ACN Opportunity, LLC, is represented by: Stephanie Elizabeth Niehaus, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 872-9851 TRUMP CORP: Appeals Opinion and Order in Doe Suit to 2nd Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Trump Corporation filed an appeal from the District Court's Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2020, entered in the lawsuit styled Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 18-cv-9936, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court granted in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the RICO claims (Counts I and II), and their motion is denied with respect to the state law claims (Counts III through VIII). The lawsuit concerns an alleged fraudulent scheme to promote certain third party companies offering multi-level marketing and training programs. The Complaint asserts racketeering and conspiracy claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). It also asserts various state law claims. According to the complaint, the Defendants misled consumers into believing that ACN, Inc., a North-American based multi-level marketing company, offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. They accomplished this by misrepresenting (a) the risk inherent in the ACN business opportunity, (b) the profitability to consumers of the ACN business opportunity and multi-level marketing programs in general and (c) the market for ACN's products and services. Second, Trump falsely represented that the reason he supported ACN was because it offered a reasonable probability of commercial success. He never disclosed that he was being paid millions of dollars for his endorsement. Third, the Defendants falsely represented that Trump's endorsement was predicated on appropriate due diligence, inside information and personal experience with ACN. The appellate case is captioned as Doe v. Trump Corporation, Case No. 20-1228, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., are represented by: Alexander J. Rodney, Esq. KAPLAN HECKER & FINK LLP 350 5th Avenue New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 763-0883 Email: arodney@kaplanhecker.com Defendants-Appellants Trump Corporation, et al., are represented by: Joanna C. Hendon, Esq. SPEARS & IMES LLP 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 213-6996 Email: jhendon@spearsimes.com TUFIN SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Primozich Class Suit in NY -------------------------------------------------------------- Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. said in its Form 20-F report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2020, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019, that the company continues to defend a putative shareholder class action suit entitled, Matt Primozich v. Tufin Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 651287/2020 On February 26, 2020, the company, along with its directors and officers at the time of the company's initial public offering, or the individual defendants, were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class action lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned Matt Primozich v. Tufin Software Technologies Ltd., et al., Index No. 651287/2020 (Sup. Ct. 2020). In the complaint filed on February 26, 2020, the plaintiff, representing a class of all purchasers and acquirers of the company's ordinary shares issued in connection with the initial public offering alleged that the company violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making material misstatements or failing to disclose material information. The complaint also asserted claims against the individual defendants for control person liability under Section 15 of the Securities Act. Tufin said, "We believe this claim is without merit and intend to contest it vigorously, and that expenses incurred and any payments due as a result of this claim will be covered under our directors and officers liability insurance policy, subject to a deductible of up to $2.5 million and the terms and limit of the coverage." Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. is a security policy management company specializing in the automation of security policy changes across hybrid platforms while improving security and compliance. TUFIN SOFTWARE: Rosen Reminds Investors of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. (NYSE: TUFN) shareholders pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on or about April 11, 2019 (the "IPO" or "Offering") of the recently filed securities class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Tufin investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Tufin class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1801.htmlor contact: Phillip Kim, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Toll-free: 866-767-3653 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com cases@rosenlegal.com NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents were negligently prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. Specifically, the lawsuit claims the Offering Documents made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Tufin's customer relationships and growth metrics were overstated, particularly with respect to North America; (2) Tufin's business was deteriorating, primarily in North America; (3) as a result, Tufin's representations regarding its sustainable financial prospects were overly optimistic; and (4) as a result, the Offering Documents were materially false and/or misleading and failed to state information required to be stated therein. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-register-1801.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or cases@rosenlegal.com. Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 3 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. [GN] UNITED STATES: Dowell Files Cert. Petition to Supreme Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Samuel Dowell filed with the Supreme Court of United States a petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the matter styled Samuel Dowell, And Others Similarly Situated v. United States of America, Case No. 19-8254. Response is due on May 14, 2020. Petitioner Samuel Dowell petitions for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis to review the judgment of the Ninth Circuit in the case titled SAMUEL DOWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee, Case No. 19-35110, in the United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment denying Dowell's "Extraordinary Writ Challenge." The questions presented are: 1) Can Congress Regulate the private and personal property of the ultimate consumer for eternity through The Commerce Clause simply because that item at some point in history travelled in the stream of commerce? 2) Can Congress deny rights to minors that have been clearly established by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning privacy in connection with intimate relationships and procreation? 3) Can Congress enact statutes that chill and forbid Islamic Americans the same Constitutional rights enjoyed by other American cultures, thus, prohibiting long established Muslim Religious tenets and traditions? 4) Is pedophilia a religious choice protected by the First Amendment, a sexual orientation protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, or a mental defect of ones birth? And if it is a mental defect, is criminalizing it and jailing mentally ill victims for decades cruel and unusual punishment under the Eight Amendment? As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Petitioners are federal inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution at Sheridan, Oregon, who purport to bring a "Class Action Extraordinary Writ Challenging the Constitutionality of Statute 18 U.S.C. Section 2250-60." They did not submit a filing fee, and their "Motion to Waive the Filing Fee" does not include certified copies of their prison trust accounts to establish the inability to pay. Regardless, the action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. On behalf of themselves and other federal prisoners convicted of child pornography offenses, the Petitioners contend that the federal government exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate or criminalize child pornography and, in doing so, violated their rights to free speech and freedom of religion. They maintain that the federal government discriminated against them based solely on their sexual orientation of pedophilia and threatened the tenets of the Islamic religion and the sexual orientation that pedophiles are born with and powerless to change. The Petitioners seek a declaration that 18 U.S.C. Sections 2250-2260 are unconstitutional and an order requiring that petitioners be released and all record of these statutes be purged from their records. Oregon District Court Judge Michael J. McShane holds that the Petitioners may not challenge their federal convictions through a class action. Rather, a petitioner who seeks to challenge the legality of his detention must file a motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to correct, vacate, or set aside his conviction or sentence. In other words, each petitioner must file a Section 2255 motion in the district where he was sentenced, and each of them must do so within one year after the relevant conviction became final. The Judge says that if the Petitioners intend to argue that Section 2255 is inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of their detention, they arguably may seek review under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 in the district. However, each Petitioner must make a claim of actual innocence and show that he did not have an unobstructed procedural shot at presenting that claim in a Section 2255 motion. In the case, no petitioner asserts that he is actually innocent of child pornography offenses and had no opportunity to raise his arguments in a Section 2255 motion. Accordingly, the Judge holds that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petitioners' claims, and dismissed the action. Plaintiff-Petitioner Samuel Dowell, Petitioner, appears pro se.[BN] Defendant-Respondent United States is represented by: Noel J. Francisco, Esq. SOLICITOR GENERAL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Email: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS: Palade Appeals Order in Civil Rights Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Phillip Palade filed an appeal from a Court ruling in the lawsuit titled Phillip Palade, et al. v. Bd. of Trustees Univ. of Ark., et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-00379-JM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit has been filed against the Board of Trustees University of Arkansas System. The nature of suit is stated as other civil rights. The appellate case is captioned as Phillip Palade, et al. v. Bd. of Trustees Univ. of Ark., et al., Case No. 20-1786, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Phillip Palade, On Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, et al., are represented by: Brittany S. Ford, Esq. Joseph Wayne Price, II, Esq. QUATTLEBAUM & GROOMS 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, AR 72201-0000 Telephone: (501) 379-1700 Defendants-Appellees Board of Trustees University of Arkansas System, et al., are represented by: David A. Curran, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS 2404 N. University Avenue Little Rock, AR 72207-3608 Telephone: (501) 686-2520 VMWARE INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Filing of Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 31, 2020, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against VMware, Inc. (NYSE: VMW). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is March 30, 2019 through February 27, 2020. To learn how to participate in this action, please visit https://www.federmanlaw.com/blog/federman-sherwood-announces-the-filing-of-a-securities-class-action-lawsuit-against-vmwareinc/ Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all VMware, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, June 1, 2020 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 E-mail: rkh@federmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/[GN] VMWARE INC: Levi & Korsinsky Notes of Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, announces that a class action lawsuit has commenced on behalf of shareholders of publicly-traded VMware, Inc. (VMW) Shareholders interested in serving as lead plaintiff have until the deadlines listed to petition the court. Further details about the cases can be found at the links provided. There is no cost or obligation to you. VMW Shareholders Click Here: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vmware-inc-loss-form?prid=5892&wire=1 VMware, Inc. (VMW) VMW Lawsuit on behalf of: investors who purchased March 30, 2019 - February 27, 2020 Lead Plaintiff Deadline : June 1, 2020 TO LEARN MORE, VISIT: https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/vmware-inc-loss-form?prid=5892&wire=1 According to the filed complaint, during the class period, VMware, Inc. made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VMware's reporting with respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in compliance with all relevant accounting and disclosure requirements; (ii) the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or investigation; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. You have until the lead plaintiff deadlines to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing investors in securities litigation and have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Contact: LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. 55 Broadway, 10th Floor New York, NY 10006 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ E-mail: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com [GN] VMWARE INC: Pomerantz Announces Filing of Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against VMware, Inc. (NYSE: VMW) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and indexed under 20-cv-02182, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired acquired VMware securities between March 30, 2019 and Feb. 27, 2020, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. If you are a shareholder who purchased VMware securities during the class period, you have until June 1, 2020, to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby POMERANTZ LLP E-mail: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com Tel: 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980 Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares purchased. VMware provides software in the areas of hybrid cloud, multi-cloud, modern applications, networking and security, and digital workspaces in the United States and internationally, and sells its products through distributors, resellers, system vendors, and systems integrators. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VMware's reporting with respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in compliance with all relevant accounting and disclosure requirements; (ii) the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or investigation; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 27, 2020, during after-market hours, VMWare filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), disclosing an SEC investigation into the Company's backlog of unfilled orders. Specifically, that Form 8-K advised investors that, "[i]n December 2019, the staff of the Enforcement Division of the [SEC] requested documents and information related to VMware's backlog and associated accounting and disclosures." The Form 8-K also advised investors that, although "VMware is fully cooperating with the SEC's investigation," it was "unable to predict the outcome of this matter at this time." On this news, VMware's stock price fell $15.11 per share, or 11.14%, to close at $120.52 per share on February 28, 2020. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Paris, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/-- continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] VMWARE INC: Schall Law Firm Files Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------ The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against VMware, Inc. (NYSE: VMW) for violations of Sec. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Investors who purchased the Company's securities between March 30, 2019 and February 27, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm before June 1, 2020. Contact: Brian Schall The Schall Law Firm 1880 Century Park East, Suite 404 Los Angeles, CA 90067, Tel: 310-301-3335 Web site: http://www.schallfirm.com/ E-mail: brian@schallfirm.com The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading statements to the market. VMware failed to maintain compliance with accounting and disclosure guidelines with respect to the reporting of its backlog of unfilled orders. This failure opened the Company to a greater risk of regulatory scrutiny and investigation. Based on these facts, the Company's public statements were false and materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the truth about VMware, investors suffered damages. Join the case to recover your losses. The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder rights litigation. [GN] VMWARE INC: Thornton Law Firm Investigating Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Thornton Law Firm LLP announces that it is investigating a lawsuit filed against VMWare, Inc. on behalf of VMW shareholders (VMW). VMW investors who have purchased at least 1,000 shares of VMW stock between March 30, 2019 and February 27, 2020, that are interested to serve as a lead plaintiff are encouraged to visit https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW. Shareholders may also contact the Thornton Law Firm at shareholder@tenlaw.com, or call 617-531-3917. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class member and at this time, shareholders who wish to be a lead plaintiff may apply to do so. FOR MORE INFORMATION, VISIT: https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW Interested VMW shareholders have until June 1, 2020 to apply to be a lead plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws, and the class has not yet been certified. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. There is no minimum number of shares required to be a class member. VMware provides software in the areas of hybrid cloud, multi-cloud, modern applications, networking and security, and digital workspaces in the United States and internationally, and sells its products through distributors, resellers, system vendors, and systems integrators. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, the suit alleges Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) VMware's reporting with respect to its backlog of unfilled orders was not in compliance with all relevant accounting and disclosure requirements; (ii) the foregoing subjected the Company to a foreseeable risk of heightened regulatory scrutiny and/or investigation; and (iii) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. It is alleged that on February 27, 2020, during after-market hours, VMWare filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), disclosing an SEC investigation into the Company's backlog of unfilled orders. Specifically, the suit states that the Form 8-K advised investors: "In December 2019, the staff of the Enforcement Division of the [SEC] requested documents and information related to VMware's backlog and associated accounting and disclosures." The Form 8-K also allegedly advised investors that "VMware is fully cooperating with the SEC's investigation," but was "unable to predict the outcome of this matter at this time." On this news, VMware's stock price fell $15.11 per share, or 11.14%, to close at $120.52 per share on February 28, 2020. Investors who are interested in serving as a lead plaintiff who purchased at least 1,000 shares of VMW stock (VMW) are encouraged to contact: Thornton Law Firm Shareholder Rights Team http://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW E-mail: shareholder@tenlaw.com Tel: 617-531-3917 Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in representing individual shareholders and institutional investors in recovering damages caused by violations of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the country and recovering losses on behalf of shareholders. Contact: Thornton Law Firm LLP State Street Financial Center 1 Lincoln Street Boston, MA 02111 https://www.tenlaw.com/cases/VMW [GN] WELLCARE OF FLORIDA: Arsenault Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Arsenault and Geraldine Lochren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wellcare Of Florida, Inc. and Comprehensive Health Management, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 20-cv-00184 (N.D. Fla., April 13, 2020), seeks relief for Defendants' failure to pay appropriate overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wellcare of Florida operates as "Staywell Health Plan Florida." It has a contract with the State of Florida's Agency for Healthcare Administration to provide Medicaid managed care services to Medicaid recipients in the State of Florida. Arsenault and Lochren worked as Care Specialists for Staywell, providing case management services including conducting assessments of enrollees eligible for care, developing care plans, assisting with referrals to providers and resolving complaints. Care Specialists are discouraged from reporting overtime but need to work "off the clock" in order to complete their tasks, usually in excess of 40 hours in a work week and were not paid one and one half their regular hourly rate as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, asserts the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq. JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A. 900 East Moreno Street Pensacola, FL 32503 Tel: (850) 437-9600 Fax: (850) 437-0906 WHEELCARE EXPRESS: Fails to Pay Meal Period Premiums, Gbotoe Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- AARON BRYANT GBOTOE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. WHEELCARE EXPRESS, INC., a California corporation dba WHEELCARE EXPRESS, and DOES 1-10, Case No. 3:20-cv-2797 (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2020), alleges that the Defendants failed to pay their employees premium wages for missed meal and rest periods and minimum wage for every hour worked as required by the California Labor Code, as well as California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The Plaintiff contends that his constant workload of picking up and dropping off clients prevented him from having the ability to take a 30-minute meal period within the first five hours of any shift greater than six hours. He adds that Wheelcare Express failed to accurately record when he was not able to take a meal period. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in Alameda County, California, as a non-exempt driver from May 2019 to September 2019. Wheelcare Express operates a transportation service in the San Francisco Bay Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Nunes, Esq. NUNES WORKER RIGHTS LAW, APC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: 530 848-1515 Facsimile: 424 252-4301 E-mail: tony@nunesworkerrightslaw.com [^] Best Practices in Qualifying the Class ------------------------------------------ Beard Group, Inc. is hosting a webinar for plaintiff practitioners on client intake for mass torts and class actions on Thurs., May 28 at 2 p.m. Eastern Time. Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV Lead generation is just half the battle. You still have to win over the client. Register now and learn the following: -- Primary elements in responding to a lead -- How to customize scripts for case, demographics -- Developing effective screening criteria -- Tactics in converting leads to plaintiffs on first contact -- Minimize lead loss -- Publicity vs. conversion budgets Benefits: -- Optimize your marketing budget's ROI -- Maximize the size of your class -- Reduce acquisition cost per client Tom Ball, Senior Vice President at Alert Communications, will present what his company has learned after completing millions of new client intakes for law firms and legal marketing agencies. Thurs., May 28 2 p.m. Eastern Register FREE at bit.ly/2KqkcIV ********* 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 ***